I'm not interested in individual employees but to my ear the push inside Mozilla to deprecate HTTP in Firefox sounds like it could be part of an overarching NSA agenda to make web-scale traffic analysis far easier by reducing the web's decentralized nature. Not to mention it would make the web less green since more CPU would be needed to push all those extra bytes.
an epic science book which attempts to grapple with some of these questions.
from the Wikipedia page:
"Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies. These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment."
It's my view that ^ is generally what is at play with regard to the lower and middle classes in the United States.
You were under a false impression if you're referring to a single recreational dose (approx 120mg) taken once or even twice a weekend. The studies on animals that are often pointed to in Wikipedia involve exposing lab animals to doses that are both quite high and importantly far more frequent than the way this drug would utilized during sessions or as a party drug. Controlled tests on lab animals where a more normal dose was given and a more appropriate period of time was given between the next dose do not show any compelling evidence of any kind of long-term anomalies.
The studies on humans that are often cited are typically unscientific because they're inclusive of individuals who also use other substances that are known to be neurotoxic such as alcohol or even methamphetamine. Also more importantly these recreational users are not given a supply of pure MDMA so it's safe to assume that some percentage of them are actually ingesting a cocktail of MDMA adulterated with other substances.
With all of this said, the verdict is still out on whether or not this is neurotoxic in human at normal doses.. there definitely is a long term tolerance that builds up to the effect of the drug but this alone does not prove anything about neurotoxicity.
To me, just thinking philosophically about what you described, it sounds problematic even in your best case wouldn't you agree ? I mean lets say that you do somehow manage to convince your rational scientific mind that "there's something there". Now what ?
Wouldn't you then be stuck in the awkward position of engaging mysterious potentencies which impact your life but who's fundamental operations seem utterly mysterious to you ?
To me, philosophically speaking, that sounds like a recipe for disaster. The analogy that spring to mind is a tourist onboard a nuclear submarine who is jabbing his finger wildly at the controls without knowing what any of the buttons and levers do. I mean it sounds like good fun if thrill seeking is your cup of tea, and I can see how it might be possible to convince yourself there's "something there", but yet it's an inherently risky proposition is it not ?
And then Buddha arrived on the scene and argued that the Hindu concept of Self (Atman) doesn't even exist. The Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging, "Self" can be found. All conditioned phenomena are subject to change, and therefore can't be taken to be an unchanging Self.
Instead, the Buddha explains the perceived continuity of the human personality by describing it as composed of five attributes (skandhas) none of which contain a permanent entity.
> As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
So while it is important to continue to examine things to realize that each thing under examination isn't a self, isn't me, isn't mine, isn't unchanging, isn't eternal, that doesn't mean that there is a doctrine that there is no self. The Buddha explicitly refuses to answer the question of the existence of a self, and says that to hold either of the views "there is a self" or "there is no self" is unskillful, a fetter, an impediment to freedom.
The Hindu concept of Self (with a capital S) denotes Brahman. That is different from the more personal self (with a lowercase s) or Atman that the Buddha demolished. At least that is the convention that I've observed in books on Hinduism and Buddhism.
edit: I looked this up and now I'm more confused than when I started. There is a distinction made between the lowercase self and capital Self all right; I'm just not sure I understand the details.
I think I can shed a little light on that distinction -- here's how I understand it. No serious formal study here, but a few classes and a lot of reading of Hindu texts under my belt:
The human "Self" -- capital S -- generally refers to Atman. Atman is a "shard" of Brahman. So Self does denote Brahman, but with the tacit understanding that Atman is itself composed of Brahman, like a small patch of a flowing stream. It's not its own separate entity, but rather a piece of the whole that is also representative of the whole (look up "Tat Tvam Asi" for more on this concept).
The self -- lowercase s -- is generally used to refer to the dual self that humans have: Atman and Jiva. The Atman is the Self as we discussed before (but the Self is also the divine, as Krishna claims throughout the Gita). The Jiva, however, is the discrete part of the self -- the ego, all wants/desires, attachments to sense-objects and the physical world. When in casual conversation we discuss ourselves, a Hindu would likely claim that we are in fact discussing the Jiva.
sigh This is one of the problems that comes with trying to map these traditions into our common English vernacular. We end up inventing new words (like capital Self vs lowercase self) or worse (as is often the case in buddhist circles) we borrow terminology from Freud (ego) and reuse it in ways that would have the Austrian neurologist flabbergasted.
I think what we need is "basic commodities" in terms of foodstuffs that a person could live off of, for example: a 40lb bag of rice, lentils, 3 different kinds of beans, corn meal, canned tomatoes, canned fruit, and a jar full of multi-vitamins. Absolutely no proof of income status should be required only a quick verification that that A. You are a human being, and B. you're not abusing the system by taking more than you could actually consume during a given time period.
This ensures that nobody ever needs to go hungry, it puts money in people's pockets because now they don't have to spend as much of their income on food, and it accomplishes this all without prying into the private details of anyone's life.
The goal in my opinion should not be to "give everyone an income" but rather to give everyone a safety net on top of which they can attempt to build a life for themselves. It trains people to be used to sharing and giving the things that we need to sustain ourselves, which is healthy and nurtures a cooperative spirit among men.
* all participants retain 100% ownership of all digital assets produced during the hackathon
^ if that's included then it some kind of a scam IMHO. Why would an team want to program in a legally onerous environment as opposed to say, a mall food court ?
I view this as an attempt by various power brokers to subvert the power of the World Wide Web by attacking it's decentralized nature. In the beginning (like now) it'll be relatively simple for everyone to get their hands on the SSL cert they need, but the risk is that in the future, after support for HTTP has been reduced it could become more difficult to acquire the certificates required to deliver the user experience that you wish to deliver (not just in terms of price, but in terms of censorship).
In addition to making the web more centralized, forcing everyone into HTTPS actually makes it much easier to effect broad scale traffic analysis. On top of that many info-sec experts suspect that the actual cipher in play here may eventually be proven to have significant weaknesses at some future date. AND HTTPS is more expensive to support in terms of bandwidth, CPU, and increased latency. It could result it more coal being burned each year to push all of those extra bytes around.
In such a scenario, wouldn't an alternative/forked browser emerge with support for an HTTP/anonymous web?
There is also censorship risk in named-data and content-centric networking, which offer multicast and caching benefits, but rely on uniquely identified content.
certainly there will always be alternative browsers, but since they would be used by a small minority the censors would effectively have the ability to determine which publishers are "cleared" to reach out to the most broad demographics. That alone would be enough if your censorship goal was to be able to sway public sentiment.
