All conspiracies are based upon the wistful idea that somehow, somewhere, there exists a group of people capable of keeping interesting secrets.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
All conspiracies are based upon the wistful idea that somehow, somewhere, there exists a group of people capable of keeping interesting secrets.[/quote]
Well stated.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
All conspiracies are based upon the wistful idea that somehow, somewhere, there exists a group of people capable of keeping interesting secrets.[/quote]
Actually, a lot of large companies are doing very well even though they sell nothing but IP. Check out the semiconductor industry. IP-blocks are nothing but “interesting secrets” the company sells for big bucks. If they were to be released in the wild, there’ll be nothing they can do to enforce their rights.
I disagree with your statement that “All conspiracies are wrong”. However, I agree with the idea that secrets can’t be kept for too long.
The most notorious illustration would be the atomic bomb. If someone came to you back in the 40’s and claimed that the goverment had thousands of people working on an explosive device that’s many many many times more powerful than anything known at the time, what are the chances of you dismissing him/her as a conspiracy kook?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Actually, a lot of large companies are doing very well even though they sell nothing but IP. Check out the semiconductor industry. IP-blocks are nothing but “interesting secrets” the company sells for big bucks. If they were to be released in the wild, there’ll be nothing they can do to enforce their rights.
[/quote]
Well, that’s what patent protection is for, which a lot of companies opt to take advantage of. Especially in high-tech fields where the usefulness of monopoly on the invention is usually a lot less than the twenty years you get for a patent. At least with patents, no one else can use or produce your invention for that twenty years. With trade secrets, if someone slips up, you’re screwed.
To address this, I’ll have to know if you mean that I think that conspiracies are intrinsically bad behavior, or if you mean that I think that there is no valid conspiracy theory.
[quote]
The most notorious illustration would be the atomic bomb. If someone came to you back in the 40’s and claimed that the goverment had thousands of people working on an explosive device that’s many many many times more powerful than anything known at the time, what are the chances of you dismissing him/her as a conspiracy kook?[/quote]
Well, here’s what I mean. People knew that governments were working on atomic bombs. They might not have had the details, but the interesting part, I think, is the knowledge that it is occurring, not how it is occurring. Not that the how isn’t useful. But, to use your example, if I were to walk up to a person on the street and start explaining how a government was planning on developing an atomic bomb, I would probably be met with a blank stare. If I explained what or that an atomic bomb was in production, and what it was capable of, that person would be understandably concerned.
So yes, I agree that uninteresting (technical) secrets can be more easily kept. There are many things that I haven’t told my family or friends about my work, simply because it isn’t interesting to someone who doesn’t have a background in the field. If I were to tell them, they would have difficulty remembering the details even if they wanted to.
If a company I worked for was getting ready to unveil a groundbreaking product, however, I’m sure that my family and friends would be very interested to learn that information so that they could invest in the company or companies. And that’s the kind of secret that is difficult to keep.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
All conspiracies are based upon the wistful idea that somehow, somewhere, there exists a group of people capable of keeping interesting secrets.[/quote]
And I certainly should’ve said “All conspiracy theories” rather than “all conspiracies.” Although I suppose that it holds true for both.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
I’d bet heavy that you know more about working the Swedish welfare system than you do about investing.
We’ve been over this many times before.
I have no idea as to how the Swedish welfare system works, but I clearly see the abuses on a daily basis. I think it’s way too lax.
I’m a libertarian socialist. That’s radically different from socialism. I don’t believe in the need for governments AT ALL![/quote]
Sharia law?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re life is based on a lie JTF. “Maybe they’re not real after all, but they sure are prophetic!” Damn man, wake up. Someone could have turned a work about Napolean III into anti-Christian propaganda. And, here we would find you, selectively picking through history, until you got the Protocols of the Elders of Christ to line up with your conspiracy theory. [/quote]
Ah, no. All I did was show how Zionist’s agenda benefitted from WWI and WWII.
When the same people continue to benefit from events that seem on the surface that they have no involvement with, maybe its time to take a closer look.
But on your topic of “selective picking” – either Ford and Churchill were two of the most influential people of the last 100 years or they weren’t. Either Ford was one of the greatest, most brilliant contributors to America ever (or the world for that matter), or he was a paranoid, delusional, anti-semitic bigot who had no idea what he was talking about.
Almost anyone who has EVER questioned undo Jewish influence has been smeared and forever branded a vile anti-semitic hate-monger by a group, who I’m told, do not actually wield the political/financial power that is claimed…
Brandeis Donors Exact Revenge For Carter Visit
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13674
“If even Carter can’t protest even this much without causing a whole university to be defunded, then there is something radically wrong with higher education in the United States.”
John McCain, groveling at the feet of a FOREIGN country.
http://tinyurl.com/3cfp74
Brown’s Bomb
Nov. 25, 1974
“They say, ‘Don’t worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress.’ Now this is somebody from another country, but they can do it.”
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,943064,00.html
When the recorded opinions of people like Ford, Churchill, Truman, U. Grant, Lindbergh, Rev Billy Graham, Nixon and hundreds more like minded people express their opinions about undo Jewish influence, we’re supposed to believe their opinions have NO basis in facts, but instead, these “crazy” allegations are strictly the product of ignorance and hate?
Referring to Jewish domination of the media, [Rev Billy] Graham says, “This stranglehold has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain.” “You believe that?” responded Nixon. “Yes, sir,” said Graham. “Oh, boy. So do I,” said Nixon. “I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”
Yeah, well its not CATHOLICS who are pushing us toward WWIII. You appear to be confusing fact with fantasy. If one of the main stated goals of the Protocols is to subvert and undermine Christianity, then the heavily promoted Da Vinci Code is more proof.
Of course the Jews, who are only 2% of the population, just can’t seem to catch a break…
Jewish Membership in Congress at All-Time High
About 2 percent of Americans identify themselves as Jewish. But in Congress, the proportion of Jewish members is now four times that.
Jews in the Bush Administration
Robert Zoellick -nominated new President of the World Bank
Paul Wolfowitz -(2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of Defense, former President of World Bank
Douglas Feith -(2001-2005) Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Richard Perle -(2001 to 2003) Chairman of the Defense Policy Board
Michael Chertoff -Head of Homeland Security
John Bolton -(Aug 2005 to Dec 2006) U.S. Ambassador to UN
Henry Kissinger -National Security Advisor
Dov Zakheim -(2001-2004) Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)
Elliott Abrams -Director of the National Security Council’s Office for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations
I. Lewis Libby -(2001-2005) Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Ken Mehlman -White House Political Director
Jeffrey Berkowitz -(2005-2006) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community and then office of presidential scheduling
Stuart Bernstein -Ambassador to Denmark
Brad Blakeman -White House Director of Scheduling
Joshua Bolten -Chief of Staff
Nancy Brinker -Ambassador to Hungary
Michael Chertoff -Head of the Justice Department’s criminal division
Ari Fleischer -(2001-2003) White House Press Secretary
David Frum -(2001-2002) Speechwriter
Chris Gersten -Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS
Adam Goldman -(2001-2003) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Blake Gottesman -President’s personal aide
Jeremy L. Katz -White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Daniel Kurtzer -Ambassador to Israel
Frank Lavin -Ambassador to Singapore
Jay Lefkowitz -(2001-2004) Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council
John Miller -Director, State Departement Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
Noam Neusner -(2004-2005) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Mel Sembler -Ambassador to Italy
Martin Silverstein -Ambassador to Uruguay
Cliff Sobel -Ambassador to the Netherlands
Tevi Troy -(2003-2004) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Mark D. Weinberg -Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs
Ron Weiser -Ambassador to Slovakia
Jay Zeidman -(2006-2007) White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Ben Bernanke -Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve
Thank god for Affirmative Action I guess.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
All conspiracies are based upon the wistful idea that somehow, somewhere, there exists a group of people capable of keeping interesting secrets.[/quote]
And your right, they didn’t keep it a secret.
Proving that controlling the message is more valuable than actually keeping secrets.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
But on your topic of “selective picking” – either Ford and Churchill were two of the most influential people of the last 100 years or they weren’t. Either Ford was one of the greatest, most brilliant contributors to America ever (or the world for that matter), or he was a paranoid, delusional, anti-semitic bigot who had no idea what he was talking about.
[/quote]
Ford was a brilliant contributor, and a paranoid, anti-semitic bigot who had no idea what he was talking about. I really like how he blamed everthing, including Jazz and “Nigger Gin,” on Jews. But yeah, he’s not paranoid…
He’s your prophet, and the plagiarized protocols your scripture. I’m serious man, you sound just like one of those loony late-night preachers. You know the one’s I’m talking about. They demonstrate how Armageddon is upon us, using present day news as fulfillment of Revelations passages.
Anyways, you can have your podium back. I think the side by side comparisons in my earlier post spoke volumes. This time, I really mean to make my exit. It’s gotten far too creepy.
I don’t know JTF. The very fact that people are out there spreading hatred, such as your little bullshit diatribes may do, contributes to the creation of divisions between people.
Have you ever heard of a self fulfilling prophesy?
Perhaps, instead of distrusting and fearing somebody that is different, we should think about accepting them. All the Jewish people I have met and gotten to know are just like you and I.
They grow up citizens, become patriotic, and live as productive and lawful citizens, contributing to society just like anybody else. Why don’t you waste your invective on a group that deserves some castigation.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe radical islamic dupes bent on terrorism?
Lixy,
To clear up that cluttered “libertarian socialist” mind of yours:
When Chomsky’s investment portfolio “puts us regular guys to shame”, it isn’t what he invests in, it is how much he invests.
“Regular guys” would love to be worth the couple of million that Chomsky has in his growth stocks. There is no doubt his portfolio via TIAA-CREF looks like a regular guys - but he “puts regular guys to shame” because regular guys aren’t millionaires with access to tax shelters like ole Chomsky.
The part you can’t seem to digest is that Chomsky is the self-declared enemy of all he happily profits from - which means, like you, he is a fraud.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Well, that’s what patent protection is for, which a lot of companies opt to take advantage of. Especially in high-tech fields where the usefulness of monopoly on the invention is usually a lot less than the twenty years you get for a patent. At least with patents, no one else can use or produce your invention for that twenty years. With trade secrets, if someone slips up, you’re screwed. [/quote]
That’s a good point, but in the particular field I refered to, the blocks I’m talking about implement functions that have enough prior-art that a patent would never be granted - even in the US! - and all they can do about it, is protect it through secrecy.
Of course, this is the exception rather than the rule. The companies selling IP in the semiconductor business are merely giving you thoroughly tested blocks that are supposedly bug-free (which is of course, never the case).
The second one.
[quote]Well, here’s what I mean. People knew that governments were working on atomic bombs. They might not have had the details, but the interesting part, I think, is the knowledge that it is occurring, not how it is occurring. Not that the how isn’t useful. But, to use your example, if I were to walk up to a person on the street and start explaining how a government was planning on developing an atomic bomb, I would probably be met with a blank stare. If I explained what or that an atomic bomb was in production, and what it was capable of, that person would be understandably concerned.
So yes, I agree that uninteresting (technical) secrets can be more easily kept. There are many things that I haven’t told my family or friends about my work, simply because it isn’t interesting to someone who doesn’t have a background in the field. If I were to tell them, they would have difficulty remembering the details even if they wanted to.
If a company I worked for was getting ready to unveil a groundbreaking product, however, I’m sure that my family and friends would be very interested to learn that information so that they could invest in the company or companies. And that’s the kind of secret that is difficult to keep.[/quote]
I have actually no idea how spread was the knowledge that the government was working on an atomic bomb. I just assumed the government would be trying to keep it secret.
And I’m not talking about the details here, but the whole purpose of the project. If anyone of you guys has any articles from the early 40s that talk about it, I’d welcome them. If it’s just something you had your grand-father tell you, feel free to share.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
When Chomsky’s investment portfolio “puts us regular guys to shame”, it isn’t what he invests in, it is how much he invests. [/quote]
Oooh…that’s better! Why didn’t you say so from the beginning? Let me guess, you purposedly tried to sneak that hoping nobody will notice you slandering the Professor.
When you use the term “portfolio”, it generally refers to how one invests rather than how much.
I’m glad we finally cleared that up.
Blame your government for that.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Why don’t you waste your invective on a group that deserves some castigation. [/quote]
I learned a new word today. Thanks vroom!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Oooh…that’s better! Why didn’t you say so from the beginning? Let me guess, you purposedly tried to sneak that hoping nobody will notice you slandering the Professor.[/quote]
Uh, Lixy - yet again you go seeking a conspiracy. I did say exactly what I meant - a portfolio that puts regular guys to shame, when viewed with common sense, would mean “by amount of its worth”.
Um, no.
It was never was unclear - you just failed to use ordinary common sense.
It is not the government’s job to make sure we are worth a couple of million - it is our job. We just don’t need a hypocritical Chomsky raging against the machine that he handsomely profits from.
Thunderbolt,
Is Chomsky supposed to be poor for his theories on capitalism to be valid? What he does with his money that he earns is trivial really. It doesn’t make him a fraud.
You obviously dislike him since you made the effort to try to discredit him as a person, instead of his scholarly work.
I’m curious as to what Chomsky says that you disagree with. Do you have specific examples that you can think of?
Dustin
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Thunderbolt,
Is Chomsky supposed to be poor for his theories on capitalism to be valid? What he does with his money that he earns is trivial really. It doesn’t make him a fraud.[/quote]
Sure it does. He doesn’t merely say capitalism, etc. needs fine-tuning - he thinks the whole endeavor is based on evil. Profiting from evil makes him an accomplice to all that he rails against.
If Chomsky is right about the exploitation of capitalism, why is it ok that he profit from it, but I shouldn’t, or you shouldn’t, or the CEO of Halliburton shouldn’t?
One rule: walk it like you talk it. Otherwise, you are a sham.
Well, that would be wrong. First, I am not discrediting his scholarly work - that being linguistics. His opinions on foreign policy and politics generally certainly don’t rise to the level of “scholarly work”. Second, if he deserves discrediting, then so be it - it speaks to his motive to do what he does.
Chomsky can be taken on the merits and on his character. It is a field day, either way.
I am pressed for time, but I will get back to this hopefully this afternoon.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sure it does. He doesn’t merely say capitalism, etc. needs fine-tuning - he thinks the whole endeavor is based on evil. Profiting from evil makes him an accomplice to all that he rails against. [/quote]
He says it’s exploitive. I’m reading 501 The Conquest Continues and he gives countless examples of this.
Is he supposed to live in a one-room shack in the Ozarks to make his critiques of capitalism valid? Should he just ignore the exploitive nature of capitalism and not say anything negative about it?
That’s a valid point, but you have earn a living as well. He’d be stupid to not take advantage of the opportunities he’s earned. It still doesn’t mean that one can’t point out the negative aspects of capitalism.
It’s like saying American’s can’t be critical of the government because they live in U.S. If they want to to do that, they need to live in a different country. If they stay they’re just hypocrites.
Chomsky’s the most thorough researcher I’ve ever seen, by far. If you read his books on foreign policy (or any topic for that matter), they’re loaded with primary sources. To the point that his books can be difficult to read at times. Why is his work in foreign policy not scholarly, because his opinion is not that of the mainstream?
What are his motives? People often say he has some dubious agenda. I thought he just telling the truth.
I don’t have a problem with people not liking his opinions or disagreeing with him. My problem is with people (not necessarily you) who dislike him and attack his character simply because he refutes what we’ve been told since we were young.
Dustin
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sure it does. He doesn’t merely say capitalism, etc. needs fine-tuning - he thinks the whole endeavor is based on evil. Profiting from evil makes him an accomplice to all that he rails against.
If Chomsky is right about the exploitation of capitalism, why is it ok that he profit from it, but I shouldn’t, or you shouldn’t, or the CEO of Halliburton shouldn’t? [/quote]
I’ll give you an example of how you do the same. One thing we have in common (and God knows there aren’t many) is our position towards the Al Sauds. They are evidently scumbags who oppress their women, have no respect for freedom of religion, and spend the money of the people on castles and V12s from Maranello while their people get peanuts. For the most part, it was the Saudis behind 9/11 and they continue to finance terrorism worldwide, although they cooled down in recent years.
Because of that, you shouldn’t be pumping gas in your car, because chances are huge that it’ll be coming from Saudi Arabia. Yet, I’m sure you do. Should I blame you for that and call you a hypocrite? I don’t think so because you may have no other way to get to work or to get your kid to the hospital on time.
Ok, that right here just shows you never read any of the guy’s books. If there is consensus on anything in scholarly circles about Chomsky, it’s his attention to details and impeccable research. Don’t take my word for it, check out the references section of any of his material and you’ll see what I mean. If he didn’t do it so thoroughly, he’d have been long gone, especially given that he publishes in the States.
Looking forward to that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’ll give you an example of how you do the same. One thing we have in common (and God knows there aren’t many) is our position towards the Al Sauds. They are evidently scumbags who oppress their women, have no respect for freedom of religion, and spend the money of the people on castles and V12s from Maranello while their people get peanuts. For the most part, it was the Saudis behind 9/11 and they continue to finance terrorism worldwide, although they cooled down in recent years.
Because of that, you shouldn’t be pumping gas in your car, because chances are huge that it’ll be coming from Saudi Arabia. Yet, I’m sure you do. Should I blame you for that and call you a hypocrite? I don’t think so because you may have no other way to get to work or to get your kid to the hospital on time.[/quote]
The comparison would not be apt.
- My dislike of the Saudis involves the practical consideration of severing the relationship over time - not immediately severing the tie. We didn’t get interdependent with them overnight. There is nothing ostensibly wrong with trade for oil - just in these particular circumstances, which will take time to get out of with little disruption to ourselves.
Point being - I am simply not as radical about getting out of SA as Chomsky is about capitalism. Radicals take extreme positions that don’t allow for pragmatism - it is all or none.
- Chomsky has an absolute choice, consumers of gas do not - not yet.
For example, I couldn’t stop using SA oil in accordance with my beliefs unless I stopped using oil entirely - impossible. Chomsky, in accordance with his beliefs, could easily not invest in the evil system - he could take his savings and put them between the mattresses or invest in government bonds and he could not try to hide his money from the government with tax shelters.
Absolute choice versus limited choice.
- The gas you put in your car may or may not be SA gas - our biggest oil trading partner is Canada. Chomsky’s investments unequivocally support the things he is against (no way blue chips aren’t), because he hates the whole thing.
It would be different if Chomsky thought stock market capitalism was generally ok, but that he just hated, for instance, oil companies. Then he could buy non-oil company stocks. But Chomsky doesn’t have that approach - he buys all the ones he is against because he is against them all.
Moreover, why is nothing said about Chomsky using tax shelters?
I know Chomsky well, including the piles and piles of criticism that his research is in fact guilty of contextual misrepresentation and circular.
What is amusing is you call his research “impeccable” - have you actually gone to check it through?
That is false, because radical publishing houses don’t much care about stuff like legitimate research and referencing - ask Ward Churchill.