Gyroscopic Investing

this guest is talking about Edward Scissorhands instead, and the anchorwoman from HLN does not notice. Good stuff.
http://www.avclub.com/article/hln-confu ... and-226146

Did anyone watch the video? It's hilarious.

dualstow wrote: Did anyone watch the video? It's hilarious.

I did! She doesn't even bat an eye!

That dude deserves an Oscar. I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face.

I would agree that we need more of this, but I don't know how we would get it. Most guests on media outlets are as clueless as the hosts.

Perhaps we could get Bernie to do it a couple times on Faux?

Jack Jones wrote:

dualstow wrote: Did anyone watch the video? It's hilarious.

I did! She doesn't even bat an eye!

I often get the feeling that for most interviews like this, the interviewer isn't even listening to what the guy is saying, and simply has a list of things she's wanting to get through.  There's zero interactivity.  This proves it.

dualstow wrote: this guest is talking about Edward Scissorhands instead, and the anchorwoman from HLN does not notice. Good stuff.
http://www.avclub.com/article/hln-confu ... and-226146

This made my day, thanks dualstow!

Very glad you enjoyed!

Lot of wisdom in that clip.

I think that Snowden actually is a lot like Edward Scissorhands, and what he did is sort of the national security equivalent of sticking scissor fingers into a teenage girl's waterbed (i.e., very disruptive).

MediumTex wrote: I think that Snowden actually is a lot like Edward Scissorhands, and what he did is sort of the national security equivalent of sticking scissor fingers into a teenage girl's waterbed (i.e., very disruptive).

I'm interested in hearing more of your views on this.  Are you saying that his revelations harmed national security in a meaningful way, i.e. raised real risk for all of us?

My impression has been that the NSA's data gathering didn't actually net them anything they couldn't have gotten with more traditional (i.e. less dubious) methods, in part because the sheer amount of data is impossible make sense of, and in part because there is almost certainly a good deal of noise/inaccuracies (if the number of errors that came up during my most recent mortgage application is any indication).

Also I can't help but think of how many obvious signals were missed before the 9/11 hijacking, like these Saudi dudes showing up in Arizona to take flying lessons and mysteriously interested only in how to control a plane in the air but not how to land it, or the Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." and specifically discussing the use of passenger jets.  I don't see how the big data sweep would have made any difference whatsoever.  At some point, neurons in someone's head actually have to fire so that conclusions can be drawn.  More information makes  that LESS likely to happen, if anything.

WiseOne wrote: Also I can't help but think of how many obvious signals were missed before the 9/11 hijacking, like these Saudi dudes showing up in Arizona to take flying lessons and mysteriously interested only in how to control a plane in the air but not how to land it, or the Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." and specifically discussing the use of passenger jets.  I don't see how the big data sweep would have made any difference whatsoever.  At some point, neurons in someone's head actually have to fire so that conclusions can be drawn.  More information makes  that LESS likely to happen, if anything.

I think the real threat of having all information available on everyone is an AI Overlord doing the "neuron firing" as well as being useful for purposes of political blackmail by connected insiders.  Are you aware of this nightmare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

There should be a copy of all e-mails from Hillary's illegal and unsecure server.  Why doesn't anyone ask for them?  Are we really that afraid to go down that road?