Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | lvs's comments login

The endpoint of his thought process was to join Mussolini.

  "Michels stated that the official goal of representative 
  democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, 
  that representative democracy is a fa├žade legitimizing 
  the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, 
  that he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.[1] Later 
  Michels migrated to Italy and joined Benito Mussolini's 
  Fascist Party, as he believed this was the next 
  legitimate step of modern societies. The thesis became 
  popular once more in post-war America with the 
  publication of Union Democracy: The Internal Politics 
  of the International Typographical Union (1956) and 
  during the red scare brought about by McCarthyism."

I still don't understood how that followed. What am I missing?

Tyrants are servants of the people, and enemies of the oligarchs.

That's why republican democrats hate them so intensely, and have been murdering tyrants by sword and word for so many centuries.

>Tyrants are servants of the people

[citation needed]

Does Plato cut it?

"Take Aviato. That's not a name that I found. That's a name that found me."

It's almost like they were ready and waiting with the talking points... Hmmm...


I'll tell you where to stick it... to your phone.


In high frequency focused ultrasound therapy, transient cavitation occurs in the kW/m^2 range, which is associated with tissue heating and damage. This is useful for various surgical techniques and tumor ablation. For instance, it takes 1 - 3 seconds to heat tissue to 70C with 1 kW/cm^2 [1]. Therapeutic ultrasound (for tissue hyperthermia) is performed in the 0.5 - 3 W/cm^2 range, and surgical ultrasound is typically above 10 W/cm^2. [2] It appears they've set the top end of their power delivery at just below the therapeutic range.

[1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/1.1591291#page-1

[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/med.10004/pdf


What's amazing about this telemetry issue and the forced upgrade path is that, at the same time, they're trying to fight the PR problem by claiming that they might soon have a more reasonable FOSS (or at least OSS) mentality, will contribute to openssh, etc., all as part of their new "customer-oriented culture." It's really just a carrot-and-stick, isn't it?


It's more like carrot and nuclear fail bomb.

Is there anyone in MS management here who can explain how and why this is supposed to be a customer winning idea, and how it won't launch a stampede towards OS X and Linux?

"Okay, so we do the spying thing with everything you type. But - scout's honour - we don't do it all that much. Honest!"

Corporate dementia is becoming more and more of a problem in enterprise scale IT. HP, Yahoo, Apple, Oracle, IBM, and Google all suffer from it to varying degrees.

But MS appear to be trying to win a special best-in-class award for it.


It is called "Windows as a Service" for a reason.


It's not as bad as ManBearPig.


Seems overly anxious, don't you think? Isolated incidents occur between humans and all natural predators on occasion. Obviously humankind isn't currently threatened in a serious way ... until these interbreed with zombies, of course.


Btw, have you ever considered the real reason why humans so eagerly bury/burn their dead?

It's quite likely because we don't want natural predators to get used to the taste of human flesh.

I live in a country where bears have been hunted for millenia. As a result I've slept about 1,5km away from known bear nest in the woods. It was scouting trip and none of us was really worried. Because we knew that by now, bears really don't like to get in touch with humans.

The point is not to "eradicate" anything. The point is to instill fear. Which these days has allowed so harmonious human-bear relations here, that their numbers are rising.

Hopefully stuff like pepper spray and rubber bullets are used before that shoot on sight is necessary.


> It's quite likely because we don't want natural predators to get used to the taste of human flesh.

What do you suggest to dispose of human cadavers other than burying them because other methods like incineration and the likes are not as economic as the former method?


There's this method which is used in Tibet and a few other places



I had no idea that such practice existed, thanks for sharing!

Not to take away any credit from your argument but not all places on Earth have mountains nearby. Also, I assume that since these nations and people live in mountainous terrains, they had to come up with a method to dispose of those cadavers in the face of land scarcity where they live.


Tibetans also do a water burial. The first time I was there, I was asking about eating fish and birds in addition to mammals, and was told, "Tibetans do not eat fish and birds because fish and birds eat people," which I first thought was a joke.


> not all places on Earth have mountains nearby

Zoroastrians also left them out to be eaten by nature. They build a small structure for it. Exposure of the dead is not that strange.


Why would bronze age humans dispose corpses at all? Just drag them away so you don't get diseases.

But every culture we know of disposed bodies in some way that wolves, lions and other big land predators could not eat them.


Isn't that idea just because we don't find or recognize remnants of burial practices from cultures that did allow predators to consume the bodies?


> What do you suggest to dispose of human cadavers other than burying them...[?]

Have you read Stranger in a Strange Land?


Yeah, I'll do that when my friends' ghosts show up to tell me that I should do it. And even then, they might get run through another link in the food chain first--maybe even two--because I don't want spongiform encephalopathy (kuru).


Soylent Green: The "miracle food"


Where do you live?




Anecdotally, there are cartels of authors that fail to be sufficiently critical in the literature. This is undisputed. However, quite a large (sometime overwhelming) amount of criticism and scientific conflict operates in the daily practice and presentation of science that occurs outside the formal literature. Within the primary literature, variation in results or technical questions about methods are often not cited in a manner that is overtly "negative" from the perspective of a field outsider, but those in the field will understand and recognize the conflicts. These inconsistencies or disagreements in results are most often made explicit in review articles. A broad analysis of this sort is unlikely to grasp these kinds of subtleties in scientific practice.


This is completely illogical and tinfoily. If an intelligence outfit knows something, it's unwise to show their cards. It reveals sources and methods to do so. Nobody operates this way.


I'm not sure how "tinfoily" a suggestion is when it's referencing wikileaks. Wikileaks is in the business of conspiracies. It isn't much of a stretch to suggest a conspiracy might be behind wikileaks itself.


former intelligence analysts have suggested this.

The USGovt would never admit this because it might backfire as merely attacking a leaker, whose leaks are legitimate.

But the fact is, Wikileaks has to be judged on what they're not leaking.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact