Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

John wrote:

SouthernGentlman wrote: > You should shy away from your personal political views with your
> rants. It diminishes your credibility when you express your
> leanings. You of all people should realize that neither the Red
> team or the Blue team has your best interest at heart. Both
> political parties or to blame. That is what happens when you have
> career politicians. They don't care about you or me, they just
> behave in ways that benefit themselves and their cronies. I admire
> your work and truly believe in generational dynamics.

Everything that I write about is seen through the prism of the
reader's political beliefs. When I write about how the Eric Holder
refuses to prosecute banksters, Democrats think I'm favoring
Republicans. When I DON'T write about how all Muslims are evil,
Republicans think I'm being naive and favoring Democrats.

I don't consider the subject of feminist policies and Gen-Xers to be
any more political than anything else that I write about. I believe
that it's important to understand how Gen-Xers got the way they are,
and how ordinary Gen-Xers could possibly have entered financial
institutions and set out to defraud people (Boomers) and create tens
of trillions of dollars in fraudulent securities. In order to
understand how Gen-Xers got the way they are, you have to look at how
they were raised as kids, and the main thing that stands out is that
for most of them, their only "father" was a string of men in their
mother's beds. Once you get to that point, the issues with Clarence
Thomas and Bill Clinton become highly significant milestones.

There is a Gen-Xer in this forum who says that the most significant
event in his childhood that formed his negative view of Boomers was
streaking. ("It was the most insane thing you ever saw, but the
Boomers invented something called streaking, where a lone Boomer or a
group of Boomers would run naked through the streets or through public
events. Now that the Boomers are in charge of other things, their
behavior tends to be similar to streaking.") Something like streaking
was a simple joke to Boomers, but was a significant lifetime event to
some Gen-X kids growing up. So if streaking could have that effect on
kids growing up, imagine the powerful effect of watching the same
feminists who had already taken their own fathers away also create the
spectacles involving Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton.

So my response to you is that I consider the analysis of the effect of
feminist policies on Generation-X to be an extremely important subject
having nothing to do with politics, even though almost everyone will
interpret it through their own political lens.

One more thing: In the past ten years, I've been called all kinds of
names because of things I've written about -- China, the financial
crisis, the Iraq war, etc. -- and Generational Dynamics has always
turned out to be right, sometimes to my own surprise. I'm not going
to win any awards for the stuff that I write about. To the contrary,
I'm only hoping that I don't suffer the same fate as the mythical
Cassandra, with whom I identify closely, who was hated and disbelieved
in her predictions, and then reviled and raped when the predictions
came true, and then finally brutally murdered by her boyfriend's wife,
an event that she foresaw but was unable to prevent.

John

SouthernGentleman wrote: > I admire and respect your work but I also know you realize that
> neither the red team or blue team has your best interest at
> heart. I look at politics from the outside and don't get caught in
> the trap of sides.

gerald wrote:SouthernGentleman:
> Your approach regarding our current global events is similar
> (according to stories) to those who dispassionately watched the
> final days of the Atlantian era.

Once again, we're watching the spectacle of feminist and left-wing political groups supporting an alleged serial rapist, Julian Assange, as he uses anti-U.S. sentiments to escape being questioned in Sweden over credible charges that he raped two women.

Evidence from a source close to the US government: the private intelligence organization Stratfor. WikiLeaks published the The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails stolen from Stratfor. Some of its employees are from the US intelligence community, share its views and biases, and gain information from it. Many of these discuss Assange.
Chris Farnham to George Friedman, 6 December 2010:

BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation. I also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly rape was never the charge.

Higgenbotham wrote: > They are: unkempt, provocative, raw, in your face, irresponsible,
> capricious, and abusive, to name a few adjectives that come to
> mind that are also consistent with streaking.

John wrote: ...
Also, programmers aren't supposed to look particularly kempt anyway.
...
John

Reality Check wrote:
Man, you are showing your age.

You're from the time when hackers were bad, programmers were...

Never mind, I am showing my ages as well.

John J Xenakis in 1986 wrote: There's one more security issue of common concern, and that's when
people are allowed to access your computer remotely, over a modem.
If you've ever accessed an online data base, or if you've used the
Source or CompuServe or an online bulletin board, then you know
how it is to use a modem on your computer to dial up another
computer and access data on it. What we're talking about now is
where you have an "answering" modem which allows other people to
dial up your computer and access data.

Such modem connections are subject to all sorts of abuse. You've
undoubtedly seen or heard about the movie War Games which, which
introduced the world to the "computer hacker" who programs
his computer to try difference phone numbers and passwords until
someone's security is broken.

To combat the hackers, vendors are coming out with security
modems, modems with special features which attempt to limit the
access of hackers. The main feature of security modems is
the "call-back" option. The idea is that you set up your modem by
providing to it a list of authorized user names and their
passwords, as well as their telephone numbers. When an authorized
user dials up your computer, your modem answers and waits for the
user to type his name and password. When he does, the modem hangs
up the phone, and calls the user back at the specified telephone
number.

To provide additional security, many of these modems use two
different telephone lines. Your user calls in on one of the
lines, and the modem calls back on a different line. The reason
for doing it that way is that you should keep the telephone number
of the second line a secret so that a sophisticated intruder can't
intercept the call back phone call.

Obviously, this method is suitable if your users are always going
to be calling from the same phones, presumably their home phones.
If that's not true, then you can still use a security modem with
user names and passwords to provide some security, but do without
the call back option.