Fitness trainer here once told me don't eat any white carbs after 2pm so no white potatoes, bread, pasta ect. That pretty much has worked for me combined with daily exersize (cycle, pull up bar, walking a lot) and staying away from sugary drinks and carb snacks like chips completely. I'm not fitness model fit but good enough fit and also have diabetes in the family history which luckily so far have avoided (mid 30s)
He's pretty much a Bond villain from those articles, like the UN claiming he funded militias in Somalia to harvest hallucinogenic plants and shipping arms to Liberia.
Probably would've made the same amount of money charging for TC premium support instead of building a pancontinental empire of mercenaries and arms trafficking.
Lord of War taught us such people won't enter such businesses because the "margins are too small." I'd also guess it's not as exciting and brings in less attention from the ladies.
'Arms dealer': one who sells arms. The point he is making is that, regardless of what is considered legitimate, both this individual and the U.S. government are, by definition, arms dealers.
Agree, US is not a "dealer" they're an "exporter" -- and no one selling weapons for a government would ever offically refer to themselves as an arms dealer.
The swastika tattoo is also a troll, it's not angled like a Nazi swastika and he filled it full of norse mythology symbols thus not an endorsement of National Socialism.
He sure does enjoy the outrage when people see it though making him a walking troll factory.
> The swastika tattoo is also a troll, it's not angled like a Nazi swastika and he filled it full of norse mythology symbols thus not an endorsement of National Socialism.
Lot's of Asians where I live have the same tattoo, if you see an elderly Chinese man on a beach take off his shirt and reveal a 90deg swastika it's not a Nazi endorsement either. If you see a solid black 45deg swastika it's a Nazi tattoo.
Obviously Weev got it to trigger whoever sees it of course.
There's a difference, just like there is in Turk nationalist groups vs Turk supremacy groups (Grey Wolves). One believes they are genetically superior to all others and chosen to rule earth, and can excuse mass murder because they don't see anybody else as human. These groups are extremely dangerous and responsible for the holocaust and genocides in Africa. North Korean juche ideology is also supremist.
The other is a racist nationalist "pride" group that does not believe they are genetically superior like Weev, the Black Nationalist Panthers, ect. For the record I don't subscribe to either ideology but have met plenty of these groups unfortunately.
At least it was Weev triggering campuses from his hideout in Sarajevo and not phony bank or other fishing printouts to steal money or identities.
Throw out the racist propaganda and close those accessible printer ports with a cheap OpenBSD $40 appliance firewall any first year student can set up. Media is just helping Weev spread his message and marketing for that dailystormer site.
I feel like more attention should be brought to this, and a greater onus put on the media for "enabling" such behavior.
This thought first occurred to me when The Rolling Stone put a glamor shot of Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon terrorist bomber, on its cover.
In the click/eyes-driven world we live in, the line between fame and infamy is increasingly blurred
IMHO, more accountability needs to be placed on the media. Of course, a story needs to be "sold" to keep publications alive - so I wouldn't be opposed to putting a pseudonym attributed to the criminal that doesn't use his/her actual name in the print.
There's also the Clinton Secretary of State emails where phony protests were shilled as a solution to Israel being unwilling to negotiate, seems like staging and encouraging dissent is regular policy http://www.timesofisrael.com/clinton-received-plan-to-secret...
Machines making decisions due to our own man made complexity, wonder when this will become the norm for all facets of government, until the machines create their own massive complexity making it even more difficult for humans thus we end up completely relying on them.
It's interesting, or perhaps sad, how ripe for abuse this is. Funnel billions of dollars into a black box that then results in some amount of "stuff" being delivered to various places. The fact that they are using a system so complex that humans can't individually understand it means there's not really any accountability.
Maybe a few years from now, we'll be seeing the developers working on Watson deciding to retire to private islands at the age of 40.
First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.
If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.1
In the book, you don’t discover until you turn the page that the author of this passage is Theodore Kaczynski – the Unabomber.
Because of the damage addiction does to communities. When these laws were passed it was people in those affected communities demanding them. People forget there were huge community marches in the 80s/90s crack epidemics with locals demanding police rid their towns of crack dealers.
> People forget there were huge community marches in the 80s/90s crack epidemics with locals demanding police rid their towns of crack dealers.
People also forget why those dealers were in the business in the first place.
(Hint: the US government played a large role in explicitly financing the drug trade that resulted in a stead inflow of crack, predominantly to black communities[0]. Crack cocaine would not have been anywhere nearly as lucrative a business otherwise[1].)
[1] Which isn't to say that it's particularly lucrative either way, as has been demonstrated numerous times by economists - it just happens to be one of the few options available for many people who are trying to scrape together a living under those circumstances.
A steady influx of cocaine, which became too expensive when said shady agencies stopped what they were doing and local dealers decided to boil the expensive coke into crack so it became more affordable to addicts. Now there was a $5 per point addictive drug flooding poor areas with zero law enforcement to control it.
I remember big protests with black community leaders accusing the police of racism for not arresting crack dealers as their neighborhoods had become so dangerous police totally avoided them. They demanded new laws. Their newly elected reps ran on a platform of new tougher laws. The heavy hand of government then solved this by creating mandatory minimum sentencing and other laws that were blanket applied regardless of individual situation and created mass incarceration.
Now, let's think why white neighborhoods were not struggling with the same problems of violent crime due to the drug trade. We know that the answer is not
(a) white people weren't doing drugs
(b) white people were doing drugs that were less addictive
because in reality, white people had (and still have) roughly the same total rates of drug use as everyone else. And in this case, white people were largely using the same drug (cocaine, in powered form) as black people (cocaine, in freebase form).
I'm not saying that black people at the time weren't concerned with violent crime and calling for solutions to it. In fact, I'm usually the person who points this out whenever discussions about 80s and 90s drug law sentencing come up on HN. What I am saying instead is that it's silly to ignore the reason that black communities were concerned with problems that white communities never had to face in the first place.
No, drug usage rates among whites are not and were not substantially lower than drug usage rates for other races. (In some years, they were actually higher, though not substantially so). In fact, in the 1980s, white people were also 45% more likely to sell drugs as well[0].
The difference in the effects of drug trade on black communities and on white communities in the 1980s are emphatically not due to fundamental differences of the drugs themselves, or due to differences in the prevalence of drug trade and drug usage.
>Hindelang, Hirshi, and Weiss (1981) compare police records on
arrests to self-reports for a sample of individuals and find these to be
similar, with the exception of self-reports for young black men, which
appear to understate the amount of crime committed.
If the fraction of drug users are equal, but blacks lie about whether they're drug users more often, then your statistics will show that whites use more.
The reported difference between blacks and whites is less than the known difference in honesty between them with regard to drug questions.
You also don't seem to have responded to my point at all, which is that blacks have a higher rate of reported usage within the last week. This is before taking the self-reported nature into account. See the source originally cited, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf
>Among black drug users, 54%
reported using drugs at least monthly and 32% reported
using them weekly. Such frequent drug use was less
common among white drug users. Among white users, 39%
reported using drugs monthly and 20% reported using
them weekly.
I'll let you do the math to determine how this affects usage rates.
> You don't seem to have responded to my point at all, which is that blacks have a higher rate of reported usage within the last week.
That's completely counter to the results of both the MTF and NSDUH. Since 1975, with the exception of Native Americans, whites consistently have slightly higher usage rates of drugs than any other racial demographic, although the overall drug usage rates are roughly comparable. For example:
> For a number of years, 12th-grade African-American students reported lifetime, annual, 30-day, and daily prevalence rates for nearly all drugs that were lower—sometimes dramatically so—than those for White or Hispanic 12th graders. That is less true [in 2014], with rates of drug use among African Americans more similar to the other groups[0]
The reason for the discrepancy is that you're citing statistics from the BJS about drug users. That's quite different from usage rates of drugs within the general population.
Finally, you are quite literally begging the question[1] by citing the 1981 analysis (which is itself a rather contested one). Even if we take that data at face value, it concludes that black men understate the crimes they commit, and does so by comparing this to arrest records. The whole point is that arrest records provide a skewed perspective of drug usage for black men (and women), because they are far more likely to be arrested for the behaviors they do.
You're using 12th grade numbers. That's more than enough to account for any difference.
>The reason for the discrepancy is that you're citing statistics from the BJS about drug users. That's quite different from usage rates of drugs within the general population.
If the same percent of whites use drugs as blacks, then looking at how many drugs are used by each user (or how often each user uses them) matters. If each black user uses more than each white user, the total usage can be more.
>Finally, you are quite literally begging the question[1] by citing the 1981 analysis (which is itself a rather contested one). Even if we take that data at face value, it concludes that black men understate the crimes they commit, and does so by comparing this to arrest records. The whole point is that arrest records provide a skewed perspective of drug usage for black men (and women), because they are far more likely to be arrested for the behaviors they do.
I took that quote out of your jstor source. If you don't like it, use the one from SSC that I linked to:
>Comparisons of several different surveys of drug use find that “nonreporting of drug use is twice as common among blacks and Hispanics as among whites” (Mensch and Kandel). (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749113)
This can't be explained by bias in arrest records. Note that they're looking at how many people who admitted using drugs in 1980 denied ever using drugs in 1984.
