Right... which is my point... this *is* the data that phone companies have, unless we also think they have all the phone calls ever made on their networks recorded. They have *more* data, like the PII data linked to the phone numbers and whatever exactly the "unique identifiers" signify. But that is just data that (as far as we can tell) the NSA did not specifically request (at this time).
That would imply that there is a historical collection of all phone content for all calls for which knowing the above would indeed be metadata.
Is there such a thing? If there is, it would have to be so secret and simultaneously massive (and exponentially growing) that keeping it secret would be really hard. The amount of data Telco's generate just for switching, location, and billing data is astounding... blow that up with voice records? Inconceivable! is all I would be able to say.
I'm not sure... I believe the NSA has always been engaged in "eavesdropping" communications that are sent over public airways...a sort of grey area that they defended as something akin to a stakeout. This strikes me as rather more direct... no need for a stakeout if you can just walk right in to the location you are watching and look for anything that might be incriminating. That's my recollection, anyhow... have they already been inside the gates this past decade, perhaps yes.
Technical nitpick... this is Data Data, not "metadata." The Guardian reports:
"Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls."
Metadata would be if NSA were to ask VZ what *sort* of data might be available, if we (the NSA) were interested. But this, this is simply extracting the actual data; we might call it "big-data" if they go so far as to get the machine data from the towers, but from the description above, probably "just" garden variety data. They are way past Metadata.
"This website is the best indicator I’ve yet found that points to what we will believe tomorrow."
For what it's worth... this is exactly why I visit (and only occasionally comment); in fact, it is very nearly exactly the phrasing I use when I encourage my other crazy traditionalist communitarian Catholics to read this site as homework.
Mike - we find ourselves in a very similar situation; eldest daughter is 16 and contemplating the next phase of life - followed in quick succession by two brothers and two sisters - and I am also a knowledge worker (Enterprise Software - Sales). About a decade ago we bought a small property in the Shenadoah Valley where we currently raise about 100 sheep, a small milking herd (2 goats, 2 dexter cows), 100 layers, hundreds and hundreds of broilers annually, and we care for about 30 acres of woods that provide Deer and Turkey each season. The goal is not any sort of Zombie apocalypse self-sufficiency, but rather, Balance.
The land is approaching self-financing (we sell our excess direct to the consumer); the children learn valuable lessons in shepherding (in the broadest sense), stewardship, Life-cycles (birth and death are not much of a mystery - and my 5-yr old can tell the difference between liver, kidney, heart and lungs including their biological functions and culinary values), and best of all they learn the pragmatic prince of all sciences: Agricultural Engineering (math, physics, biology, chemistry and baling wire).
It is well known and often told story of how commodity agriculture forced farmers into a reluctant part-time (or full-time) in town job; ultimately unsustainable. For them, I have great sympathy. But, what is old becomes new again; with many of the advances in information technology and intermediate machinery a viable business is within reach. Not, admittedly, immediately self-sustaining without your Knowledge Industry funding... but a long-term project around which you, your children, and your children's children can orient. Think of it this way: you are a land-owner who is also a Logistics Engineer... the career serves the man, and the man serves the land, which in turn provides for the family.
The goal, as you say, is balance; a project on the land provides that, but more importantly it provides ballast. The land teaches, the land is fruitful, and the land is (in every possible sense) a platform for many different projects - projects that can and should change over time. Now, in all things, balance... we can't all go to the land, we need cities and we need towns (I'm not a dogmatic ruralist), but for those who have the talents to appreciate the land, and the eyes to see it, the part of the current economic equation that is out of balance is the city and the country. There are opportunities for families that recognize that the future may require SQL skills coupled with milking and refined into a business plan for a dairy.
So, to end this long-winded exhortation from a fellow-traveler, skills and wages are fleeting - use them as tools to a better end; the balance you seek is in a project that spans generations. If your economic and political horizon does not include your grandchildren, you are doing it wrong.
This has always struck me as a reasonable rapprochement, but whenever I see it voiced by republicans, it is quickly swatted by democrats as somehow both tactically and morally wrong... since I don't much care whether folks vote for Republicans, I can never remember why this is so...only that it always happens. Is this really a viable approach (setting aside, for the moment, the bogey-man of the Koch brothers squelching it)?
Whole foods is establishing a "voluntary" mandatory requirement to label GMO ingredients if you want to sell in their stores... so I guess that answers your question about whether there is a market for this.
I don't think your post is an all-out call for a defense in depth of taking a slow and informed route to GMO's... I'll just assert that this is neither a liberal nor a conservative concern, but one that crosses ideological boundaries in both directions.
In my minds-eye, I actually imagine Blaise navigating the internet via IP Addresses; occasionally muttering to himself, "whelp, better pop over to 72.14.207.99 and see if the idiots over there can help me find that Hmong restaurant in Yemen I like to go to."
BB, I can only assume that you are defining management down to include what I would call a mere employee... when I use the term Managerial Class, I'm talking about the officers of the company that comprise the bulk of the Executive team. If you think that a company like Walmart does what it does because the Executive team wills something and it magically happens around the globe, then I'm shocked. So yes, Walmart does depend upon the good work of its employees to do what it does.
I agree; I would much rather see the executives in my industry paid a 100x salary (if that is their proportional worth) with zero stock (other than that which they might buy, or own by virtue of the founding).
My industry is high-tech, and I've witnessed the worst possible executive decisions driven solely by quarterly sales... in a company that nets 10% annual profit on $1B sales with $500M in the bank.
I certainly understand the theory behind tying to stock-price, I'm just no longer convinced it benefits the shareholders, the employees, or the company itself.
I think you can package the concept better than "capping pay." No one likes the idea that their pay might be capped; moreover it exposes one to the specter of socialism needlessly.
Another way to argue the matter would be to emphasize that businesses are collective corporate enterprises and that the success of the enterprise depends upon the good work of all employees; therefore, Executive pay should be pegged proportionally to the average wage earner's pay. Successful businesses will elevate the wages of all employees, less successful not so much. What exactly is proportional will depend upon the sector and what constitutes an average wage for their industry.
It is effectively capping, of course, but it is capping via a cultural norm and allowing for profitable enterprises to increase CEO pay, but dampening the acceleration by forcing increases to carry the weight of all employees. This is something Liberal CEO's could unilaterally do... presumably increasing the quality of workers they could recruit and increasing the competitive position of their project at the expense of executive pay. Once done, by virtue of the way executive compensation committees work, "conservative" Executive pay would decrease over time. As a traditionalist, I and mine would much rather see wealth shared justly at creation so that redistribution is more broadly sustainable and (hopefully) needed less.
Argued thus, you would be able to gain conservative support (excluding the conservatives you were never going to convince anyway), and force opponents to justify an infinite expansion model vs. the common sense model you propose.
Now, whether the new normal starts at 300x, I couldn't say. But, capping by fiat... no chance.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Indefensible”
Right... which is my point... this *is* the data that phone companies have, unless we also think they have all the phone calls ever made on their networks recorded. They have *more* data, like the PII data linked to the phone numbers and whatever exactly the "unique identifiers" signify. But that is just data that (as far as we can tell) the NSA did not specifically request (at this time).
"
That would imply that there is a historical collection of all phone content for all calls for which knowing the above would indeed be metadata.
Is there such a thing? If there is, it would have to be so secret and simultaneously massive (and exponentially growing) that keeping it secret would be really hard. The amount of data Telco's generate just for switching, location, and billing data is astounding... blow that up with voice records? Inconceivable! is all I would be able to say.
"
I'm not sure... I believe the NSA has always been engaged in "eavesdropping" communications that are sent over public airways...a sort of grey area that they defended as something akin to a stakeout. This strikes me as rather more direct... no need for a stakeout if you can just walk right in to the location you are watching and look for anything that might be incriminating. That's my recollection, anyhow... have they already been inside the gates this past decade, perhaps yes.
"
Technical nitpick... this is Data Data, not "metadata." The Guardian reports:
"Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls."
Metadata would be if NSA were to ask VZ what *sort* of data might be available, if we (the NSA) were interested. But this, this is simply extracting the actual data; we might call it "big-data" if they go so far as to get the machine data from the towers, but from the description above, probably "just" garden variety data. They are way past Metadata.
On “Some mansplaining on women’s access to the workplace”
"This website is the best indicator I’ve yet found that points to what we will believe tomorrow."
For what it's worth... this is exactly why I visit (and only occasionally comment); in fact, it is very nearly exactly the phrasing I use when I encourage my other crazy traditionalist communitarian Catholics to read this site as homework.
On “Game of Thrones: “The Rains Of Castamere””
Lannister; his heraldry would likely be 1/2 Lannister 1/2 Stark.
On “On the Nature of Evil: A Question for the Hive Mind”
Ah, you think death is something to which Christianity is subject.
"
Then as far as I can tell, that aphorism proves Christianity true.
On “Of Bubbles and Bias”
Seems sort of Taupe to me...
"
Hmmn, [starts looking for man with white goatee and yellow background on reddit]
On “Continuing Thoughts on Careers and the Workplace”
Mike - we find ourselves in a very similar situation; eldest daughter is 16 and contemplating the next phase of life - followed in quick succession by two brothers and two sisters - and I am also a knowledge worker (Enterprise Software - Sales). About a decade ago we bought a small property in the Shenadoah Valley where we currently raise about 100 sheep, a small milking herd (2 goats, 2 dexter cows), 100 layers, hundreds and hundreds of broilers annually, and we care for about 30 acres of woods that provide Deer and Turkey each season. The goal is not any sort of Zombie apocalypse self-sufficiency, but rather, Balance.
The land is approaching self-financing (we sell our excess direct to the consumer); the children learn valuable lessons in shepherding (in the broadest sense), stewardship, Life-cycles (birth and death are not much of a mystery - and my 5-yr old can tell the difference between liver, kidney, heart and lungs including their biological functions and culinary values), and best of all they learn the pragmatic prince of all sciences: Agricultural Engineering (math, physics, biology, chemistry and baling wire).
It is well known and often told story of how commodity agriculture forced farmers into a reluctant part-time (or full-time) in town job; ultimately unsustainable. For them, I have great sympathy. But, what is old becomes new again; with many of the advances in information technology and intermediate machinery a viable business is within reach. Not, admittedly, immediately self-sustaining without your Knowledge Industry funding... but a long-term project around which you, your children, and your children's children can orient. Think of it this way: you are a land-owner who is also a Logistics Engineer... the career serves the man, and the man serves the land, which in turn provides for the family.
The goal, as you say, is balance; a project on the land provides that, but more importantly it provides ballast. The land teaches, the land is fruitful, and the land is (in every possible sense) a platform for many different projects - projects that can and should change over time. Now, in all things, balance... we can't all go to the land, we need cities and we need towns (I'm not a dogmatic ruralist), but for those who have the talents to appreciate the land, and the eyes to see it, the part of the current economic equation that is out of balance is the city and the country. There are opportunities for families that recognize that the future may require SQL skills coupled with milking and refined into a business plan for a dairy.
So, to end this long-winded exhortation from a fellow-traveler, skills and wages are fleeting - use them as tools to a better end; the balance you seek is in a project that spans generations. If your economic and political horizon does not include your grandchildren, you are doing it wrong.
On “On the need for political finance reform…”
[hands Glyph a cool glass of water] That's a long way to go for that joke.
On “Outreach, Rand Paul Style”
This has always struck me as a reasonable rapprochement, but whenever I see it voiced by republicans, it is quickly swatted by democrats as somehow both tactically and morally wrong... since I don't much care whether folks vote for Republicans, I can never remember why this is so...only that it always happens. Is this really a viable approach (setting aside, for the moment, the bogey-man of the Koch brothers squelching it)?
On “Am I Taking Crazy Pills?”
Whole foods is establishing a "voluntary" mandatory requirement to label GMO ingredients if you want to sell in their stores... so I guess that answers your question about whether there is a market for this.
I don't think your post is an all-out call for a defense in depth of taking a slow and informed route to GMO's... I'll just assert that this is neither a liberal nor a conservative concern, but one that crosses ideological boundaries in both directions.
On “9 Things Progressives Are NOT”
It's ok though, some of our best friends are apostates.
"
I'm just intrigued by the notion of Fascism painted by the negative relief.
On “Thursday Night Bar Fight #6: The League Of Gentlepeople That Are As Extraordinary As Possible Without Alan Moore Suing Us for Trademark Infringement”
Well, not when someone else is doing it.
"
I believe I now know what it feels like to actually see puppies being kicked.
"
You didn't just Bombadil this thread, did you?
"
Yes, the constraints of divine agency and free will.
"
Gandalf is technically an angelic being, I think he violates the anti-divinity rule. I'm a little embarrassed to know that and throw the flag.
On “Progress”
In my minds-eye, I actually imagine Blaise navigating the internet via IP Addresses; occasionally muttering to himself, "whelp, better pop over to 72.14.207.99 and see if the idiots over there can help me find that Hmong restaurant in Yemen I like to go to."
On “Wage Mastery”
BB, I can only assume that you are defining management down to include what I would call a mere employee... when I use the term Managerial Class, I'm talking about the officers of the company that comprise the bulk of the Executive team. If you think that a company like Walmart does what it does because the Executive team wills something and it magically happens around the globe, then I'm shocked. So yes, Walmart does depend upon the good work of its employees to do what it does.
"
I agree; I would much rather see the executives in my industry paid a 100x salary (if that is their proportional worth) with zero stock (other than that which they might buy, or own by virtue of the founding).
My industry is high-tech, and I've witnessed the worst possible executive decisions driven solely by quarterly sales... in a company that nets 10% annual profit on $1B sales with $500M in the bank.
I certainly understand the theory behind tying to stock-price, I'm just no longer convinced it benefits the shareholders, the employees, or the company itself.
"
I think you can package the concept better than "capping pay." No one likes the idea that their pay might be capped; moreover it exposes one to the specter of socialism needlessly.
Another way to argue the matter would be to emphasize that businesses are collective corporate enterprises and that the success of the enterprise depends upon the good work of all employees; therefore, Executive pay should be pegged proportionally to the average wage earner's pay. Successful businesses will elevate the wages of all employees, less successful not so much. What exactly is proportional will depend upon the sector and what constitutes an average wage for their industry.
It is effectively capping, of course, but it is capping via a cultural norm and allowing for profitable enterprises to increase CEO pay, but dampening the acceleration by forcing increases to carry the weight of all employees. This is something Liberal CEO's could unilaterally do... presumably increasing the quality of workers they could recruit and increasing the competitive position of their project at the expense of executive pay. Once done, by virtue of the way executive compensation committees work, "conservative" Executive pay would decrease over time. As a traditionalist, I and mine would much rather see wealth shared justly at creation so that redistribution is more broadly sustainable and (hopefully) needed less.
Argued thus, you would be able to gain conservative support (excluding the conservatives you were never going to convince anyway), and force opponents to justify an infinite expansion model vs. the common sense model you propose.
Now, whether the new normal starts at 300x, I couldn't say. But, capping by fiat... no chance.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.