Slashdot Mirror

Watch this video

Choice and corresponding competition drive innovation, which creates better products for users. The current browser market is a great example of this, where Chrome/Firefox/IE (and Opera and Safari to some extent) compete fiercely for market share and are thus required to make compelling improvements for users.

Having a multitude of choices does have real downsides, though. When you have these choices, you're never really sure you made the right one. KDE/Gnome etc. have this problem, where users switch back and forth because of various updates/changes/features that they do or don't like at any given time. Because they flip, they aren't confident that they are getting the best experience, which degrades the entire experience of using the OS.

Too many choices, is like too much money.

that's the fiction we'd all like to believe. Unfortunately, it's just not true. The cost of too many choices is no choice at all. Yes, it's a TED talk, and it's one of the best I've ever listened to.

You think your choices are up to you?

Guess what: choices are EXPENSIVE. All by themselves. Choices themselves have a high price. Fewer options reduces the cost of choosing, and makes you more likely to buy. Witness Apple, which has the "consumer" model and the "pro" model... and that's it! Did you want the Macbook or the Macbook pro?

Sorry, it's just true. Too many choices mean people leave.

> Apple can get away with a huge margin because they're the market leader and quite frankly, Apple fans have too much money.

There is more to the computer then just hardware and software young grasshopper. There is the User Experience, ergo, a consistent and well-designed UI for a touch device, or I should say, lack of them, is what makes all the other touch devices look like toys compared to the iPad. You are paying for Apple's brand because you are paying for (relatively) good UI design.

Repeat after me:

- Consumers, counter-intuitively do NOT want choice (1) which is why Android's fractured hardware is a hindrance.
- Consumers, for the most part, don't give a shit about tech specs. Look at the demographics at WHO is buying the majority of iPads: people > 40 years. They just want something that works.

(1) http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
http://www.wikipedia.org/
http://www.khanacademy.org/
http://www.ted.com/

Standford isn't first to this game, but I still applaud them.

They hope someone else will think for them on set concept. This goes not just for computers, but also for the medical field, food industry, or anything else where it is "too complected" for set people to really give a care.

You should watch this if you haven't already, which basically says you're right. :)

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

Relying on Slashdot for legal advice ? Not wise.

Paying for a lawyer to tell you he can't actually help you, not wise.

You'd think computer programmers wouldn't be quite so stupid. I'm researching building codes for secondary suites today, as someone I know is looking at purchasing a nearby property. There's the official act, which is buried behind a paywall. There are also unreliable secondary sources, which I can click through immediately. Should I even bother?

Here's the thing. Willing to take on the risk if:

plumbing + electrical conversion < $refit_budget

Either *alone* (you've heard of short circuit evaluation) could render the decision negative. Each might have a fee required to obtain authoritative information. Money is saved by accessing *first* the official code with the greatest chance of rendering a negative decision (suitably weighted by the fee required).

Now how am I supposed to weight the odds without asking complete idiots? The authoritative sources are stuck behind the fee I'm trying to minimize.

Rely upon is so "Wikipedia will never work" it makes me puke. There's a lot of potential for prudent cost minimization long before you have to pay the fucking lawyers their extortionate fees. Excellent lawyers that don't charge fees are as common on the ground as massless pulleys.

The whole point of social group-think is to retune the balance of power until you're pretty sure you aren't paying a lawyer his hostage fee for a hostage he doesn't actually have.

I don't mind paying lawyers for services rendered. A proper title search is real work. I do mind paying lawyers for making me feel like chicken shit. I live every waking hour of my professional life navigating rule based systems, but somehow the building code surpasses my intellectual powers of first appraisal?

Primo Levi once wrote a book titled, "If not now, when." If the technologists of the world are not willing to stand up and say "your rule based system is full of shit" then what?

After self-driving cars become routine, textual analysis of laws and bylaws is in the gun sights. There are already TED talks setting up traffic cones for the battle to come:
Four ways to fix a broken legal system

What's happened here, again, almost without our knowing, is, our culture has changed. People no longer feel free to act on their best judgment.

No shit, Sherlock. And that's just the first one I found. Adding a strikethrough attribute to "get a lawyer" as sage advice concerning matters of everyday practicality would make a decent life mission. Don't get me wrong: conflict happens. With the potential for real conflict, you most definitely want to talk to professionals, and the fees won't be trivial. But no-one asks any more "Is there potential for real conflict?" What we ask is "Would you rather feel chicken-shit wise or self-assured stupid?" Who wants to live in a world like that?

There's a TED talk of a guy who tried to make a toaster..

I think it's very intelligent. To BUY that sort of marketing costs a fortune - they get it for free. Ir remind me of something that Johanna Blakly said at TED: those who buy copies are probably not customers anyway. Clever use of the alternative market IMHO.

If you're just interested in keeping up in general, then you need good news sources. I like The Economist's science section ( http://www.economist.com/science-technology ), and Slashdot. Just by reading those, you'll never miss any major developments.
You can also watch the occasional TED lecture ( http://www.ted.com/index.php ).

• This Week in Science
• The Future and You
• Changesurfer Radio

TED has already been mentioned. There are some others out there, I'm sure.

I'd advise Ted. The short films are quite comprehensible.

TED was great but it's not what it use to be. Nor are most of the podcasts I use to listen to like Astronomy Cast and Radiolab.

• This Week in Science
• The Future and You
• Changesurfer Radio

TED has already been mentioned. There are some others out there, I'm sure.

I'd advise Ted. The short films are quite comprehensible.

I'm as skeptical of fuzzy science as the next guy, but I'd like to think we could apply the scientific method to cultural phenomena.

If you can set aside 15 minutes, check out this fascinating presentation Kevin Slavin gave at TED.

If I learned anything from my teacher wife*, it's that there are dozens of ways that children (and adults) learn, and you have to tailor the learning experience for each of them.

Some children may do very well with things like the Khan Academy. Others will not.

Anyone who tries to shoehorn all children into the same learning solution is likely to leave a large percentage of them behind.

I don't understand. The whole idea about Khan Academy is to tailor the learning experience to each student's need, as opposed to shoehorning all students into one set format/pace/etc, and no one gets "left behind".. only moves at a slower pace, until they get over whatever obstacle they have and can speed along afterward. And no one is held back either, according to the same theory. I can see you saying what you did about some traditional lecture format, but... do you know what Khan Academy is all about?.. There's a wonderful TED talk on it here: http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html

Sure, because people that already have NOTHING cannot easily walk away from rising sea levels. What an ignorant douche you are.

You idiot global warming fuckers living in your cushy western palaces have no fucking concept of reality. You just have this pet theory and cry and cry because nobody takes that unimportant bullshit seriously when there are problems in the world that put even your nightmare global warming scenarios to shame.

You know whats evil? Your fucking inaction.

Pink Floyd wrote a song about you.. On the Turning Away.

You know what carbon dioxide emissions do? THEY LIFT PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, ASSHOLE.

Here is my citation, ignorant eco-dipshit. Watch the whole fucking thing, This world renowned man has even visualization software available. Use it for at least an hour. Now, after doing all that.. GO SIT IN YOUR BEDROOM AND CRY ABOUT HOW BRAINWASHED AND IGNORANT YOU HAVE BEEN.

Some books related to your excellent points:

"In defense of childhood: protecting kids' inner wildness"
http://www.chrismercogliano.com/childhood.htm
"As codirector of the Albany Free School, Chris Mercogliano has had remarkable success in helping a diverse population of youngsters find their way in the world. He regrets, however, that most kids' lives are subject to some form of control from dawn until dusk. Lamenting risk-averse parents, overstructured school days, and a lack of playtime and solitude, Mercogliano argues that we are robbing our young people of "that precious, irreplaceable period in their lives that nature has set aside for exploration and innocent discovery," leaving them ill-equipped to face adulthood. The "domestication of childhood" squeezes the adventure out of kids' lives and threatens to smother the spark that animates each child with talents, dreams, and inclinations."

"Last Child in the Woods"
http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/
"In this influential work about the staggering divide between children and the outdoors, child advocacy expert Richard Louv directly links the lack of nature in the lives of today's wired generation--he calls it nature-deficit--to some of the most disturbing childhood trends, such as the rises in obesity, attention disorders, and depression."

"Underground History of American Education"
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
"A huge price had to be paid for business and government efficiency, a price we still pay in the quality of our existence. Part of what kids gave up was the prospect of being able to read very well, a historic part of the American genius. Instead, school had to train them for their role in the new overarching social system. But spare yourself the agony of thinking of this as a conspiracy. It was and is a fully rational transaction, the very epitome of rationalization engendered by a group of honorable men, all honorable men -- but with decisive help from ordinary citizens, from almost all of us as we gradually lost touch with the fact that being followers instead of leaders, becoming consumers in place of producers, rendered us incompletely human. It was a naturally occurring conspiracy, one which required no criminal genius. The real conspirators were ourselves. When we sold our liberty for the promise of automatic security, we became like children in a conspiracy against growing up, sad children who conspire against their own children, consigning them over and over to the denaturing vats of compulsory state factory schooling."

And a TED Talk:
"Gever Tulley on 5 dangerous things you should let your kids do"
http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html

We've taught our kid early on to use a sharp knife to cut up vegetables and fruits, in part because US emergency medicine to deal with knife injuries is far better than US medicine to deal with chronic health problems that come from not eating enough vegetables and fruits. Related:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/children/default.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffJAePZFg90

Unfortunately, we listened to advice from doctors to "protect" our kid (and ourselves) from the sun and ended up with vitamin D deficiency and related health issues.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions//kids_fall_short_on_vitamin_D.aspx

We're slowly learning. There is a l

Came across this TED presentation last year:

http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html

Definitely an interesting take on this whole issue of child safety regulations. The book (written by the presenter in the video above, Gever Tully) entitled "50 Dangerous Things (You should let your kids do)" is a really nice read.

jeff

Isn't this just doing what Salman Khan suggested in his TED talk? He proposed that teachers should use class time for supervising and assisting in problem solving, and that students should watch lessons at home.

Dan Gilbert, Harvard psychologist, and one of the scientists behind the data used in the article, made an excellent talk at TED. Definitely worth viewing. Why are we Happy?

Harvard Psychologist Dan Gilbert, who was mentioned in the article, did an excellent TED talk on this very subject. Definitely worth watching - it's one my favorites.

Why Are We Happy?

We must be terrorists now!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html

Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture

Long story short: there is very little IP protection in the fashion industry (both in the U.S. and worldwide) and they do very well, thankyouverymuch. It's a surprisingly interesting video from a geek's point of view. It's like a game, really: here are the rules, here are the limitations, now solve the problem and check out the unexpected results.

Courtesy of TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html

If you like this, you may enjoy the TED talk video about it: http://www.ted.com/talks/annmarie_thomas_squishy_circuits.html

...(because you cost too much to maintain) or you'll adapt to their systems. And for Pete's sake, stop trotting out that overused ATM bit. It's called an EXAMPLE. It's how you illustrate a broad trend. ATMs are one of many, many ways that people are lost jobs to automation. There's lots more examples. My favorite is the sleeping bag factory that cranked out 1 million + bags/yr with just 300 employees. Then there's all the small craft businesses (like closet makers) that used to be highly specialized and now are being replaced by a few expert systems.

There's no broad trend, and you can't show any. We've had automation eliminating menial jobs since the cotton gin and the economy has grown, standards of living have improved that entire time. You're espousing a theory as unsupportable as intelligent design, believing in a static view of the world where an unknown entity designed an optimal set of jobs and every machine made throws people into poverty. It's insane: how can people create wealth when they spend their lives doing menial tasks?!

And our President subscribes to such an economic theory, which is the truly terrifying prospect. That's the larger half of his job as President, to propose a realistic budget for Congress to work off.

Notably, the only budget he's submitted was voted down 97 to 0. Congress has now gone two years without producing a budget, in violation of federal law. The president set up a commission on budgetary matters, and has ignored them. The guy has incredibly extreme views on a key part of his job, and he is, as a result, *cannot* perform half of his major responsibilities. He can't because his mental framework prevents him from understanding a dynamic economy.

Johanna Blakley gives a TED Talk about fashion's free culture where she compares it to the music and movie industries (slides here, PDF).

They say that pictures are worth a thousand words, so here's a simple chart displaying the relative gross sales of each industry.

What about
Take turn signs

I doubt my kid sleeping in his carseat wants to be tossed around like laundry in a roundabout...

Help eliminate stupid traffic tickets.

Informative post, except for this:

But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.

Megacorporations are presenting a message alright, but it's not one of information. Rather it's delivering messages that make them either look good or confuse the issue, or both. Ever read How to Lie with Statistics? Megacorporations are not filled with dumb marketing people, they are almost certainly acquainted with such techniques. Are they lying to themselves as well as us? I don't know and I don't care. Fry's visualizations, and now McCandless's artsy ones, were chosen for good reason. They work. Even a person who is interested in factual information is diverted to blame the graphic designer instead of exploring the issue. My opinion is that people like Fry and McCandless, and especially the corporations who hire them, are trolling experts.

If interested in informative graphic design, check out Hans Rosling for an engaging presentation on population, or the Knuth of graphic designers Edward Tufte on analytical design and human factors. If you want to know more about fossil fuel problems, check out sources other than fossil fuel profiteers. For example Bartlett's more factual presentation on limited supplies and exponential growth.

"Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." -- Edward Tufte

They are already doing something similar. Check here.

Many geeks work for companies who sell intellectual property. If there was no protection for intellectual property then there would be no employer to provide them a salary.

Many people get paid to create without intellectual property protection. I'm not just talking open source developers and academics, but also really big industries like fashion:

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

The movie and TV industries are insignificant in comparison, both in the degree of creativity (barely existent) and in their economic significance (small).

In the case of TV and Film you would probably have none of the films or TV shows you've seen in the last few years.

Maybe we'd get some decent content again instead of that low-quality, derivative commercial crap. Maybe people would enter the industry again who do it because they care about the product instead of fame and fortune. Maybe live theater would start doing better again. Altogether, there's a good chance that performing arts would greatly improve if we got rid of the legal basis under which Hollywood and the TV studios have gotten big and usurped our culture.

If you're an author

Nobody is forcing you to be an author now, and nobody would be forcing you to be an author if we curtail or abolish copyright.

And that's ignoring just the morality of it.

What morality? Copyrights and patents are a utilitarian deal: we give you this opportunity for profit in order to encourage you to create something. And as a society, we can change the deal, and if you don't like it, just don't create anything and become a plumber instead. The world doesn't owe you a job as a writer or movie maker.

ALL PROPERTY IS IMAGINARY PROPERTY. Your house is wood. Who says you get to own that wood and brick and concrete? A piece of paper, if that. There is no special property to material goods which imbues it with moral worth.

Wow, are you really that dim that you don't understand the difference between something physical and something non-physical?

Furthermore, copyrights and patents are temporary, artificial grants of monopolies, something that is legally and practically quite distinct from property.

reminds me of this http://www.ted.com/talks/gel_gotta_share.html

I apologise for calling you a troll; I hope you can see how your statements could be read as purposed primarily to sow confusion and be argumentative. (A troll doesn't need to bring up an inconsistent argument until they run out of angles to attack from, so unfortunately there's no way to distinguish right away.) Your first post equated one particular cultural image of masculinity with the male sex, and the second was easy to see as a personal attack. That combination struck me as vexatious; I am glad I am not arguing with a straw man.

(I'm going to put "or maybe it should be 'straw person'" here in quotes just in case you get worried about it, but let's dispense with the man-hating; "straw person" just looks a bit sillly. Maybe we should call them scarecrow fallacies?)

It's true that it's a very pretentious thing to claim to know how others should lead their lives. On Slashdot, there's a large set of such claims that one can make, and be assured that the responses will be knowing nods and hollow Insightful moderations. This set is so large that I sometimes forget where the boundaries are, and it's rather easy to make a well-thought-out statement sound tragically bombastic. I guess that's happened here, and I must apologise for putting forth my own experiences as general fact without solid evidence.

My unadorned opinion on the matter of fantasies is this: a significant portion of the Western population, especially men but people in general, have become increasingly emotionally detached from real life responsibilities. We no longer live the way our ancestors did; thanks to advances in technology, the amount of leisure time available to the average person has greatly increased, and thanks to media, many spend a significant portion of that time in, essentially, dreams. I posit that there is such a thing as going too far, primarily because the world outside hasn't changed all that much. The success of a civilization is still (at least partially) a result of the aggregate action of its people, and as such, people not engaged in seeking the goals prescribed by society have a diminished value to it. People who spend a lot of time gaming fall into this bracket not only while they're gaming, but because the wish-fulfilment they achieve inside the games is better than real life.

One TED Talker, Jane McGonigal, argued that the inherent property of video games in particular that allowed games to be so much more appealing was the feeling that their rules were stable, consistent, and dependable, unlike real life. (I believe there are also some statistics about gaming's pervasiveness circa last February, if you're interested.) While McGonigal maintains that this makes gamers good problem solvers, it also has an implicit downside in that heavy players have rejected the real world's complicated ambiguities. This does not bode well for society in its present state.

I've heard it argued (by everyone from male septuagenarian math professors to dangerously-radical women's studies survivors) that loss of male ambition has played a significant role in the recent progress toward gender equality in higher learning, and it's a fact of genetics that the bell curve for IQ is broader in men than women. (This brings to light the uncomfortable point that, statistically, there should be more men in universities, at which point most of my friends throw me out.) It seems to me that with so much of modern media so expertly tailed to them, and the money being spent on it still on a steady increase, that video games have at least contributed. In a way, women arguing for balance in gaming are those of us annoyed that we've been left with the baby.

Of course, say the futurists, society is fundamentally mutable. We just need to put the right architecture in place and everyone can live in Second Life forever, without any responsibilities at all. This would be nice, but it hasn't happened yet, and even if it were going to happe

Why can't we figure out that we aren't wanted in that part of the world and just fuck off? They don't want us, they don't need us. Just fuck off before we pick up more bad karma and blowback.

If you know your neighbor beats his wife and threatens to kill her, and she doesn't say anything, do you stay silent? What if you heard the story from a coworker, or from your brother across the country?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think most people would agree that they have a moral obligation to interfere in someone's life in some situations. There's a line somewhere, but it's probably different for everybody. Now what happens when the oppressor runs an entire country, committing what you consider morally reprehensible acts that are not illegal in that country? Who should have the authority to do something? Nobody? Can we really leave it up to the people when opposing viewpoints are quashed violently?

Sam Harris gave this interesting TED talk that argues that science can answer moral questions like these, though he doesn't really address how we (as in the people of the world) should deal with it. I don't think there is an objective answer to these things...that's what makes international politics so difficult. To some people, removing Gaddafi (when he made clear he wouldn't listen to dissent) is worth it.

That youtube vid is not prior art on multi-touch gestures. This sure is though: Feb 2006. Apples patent was filed December 19, 2007.

About the only thing the patent has going for it is claims 'a portable multifunction device', which might not have been specifically shown or actualized previously, but it is not novel to extend the scope this way. If we use that logic, I can then patent multi-touch gestures on a car, on a space craft, on electric pants, because nobody thought of it before.

Here is Jeff Hans ted talk for his touchscreen tech. Wouldn't this be prior art? http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

This TED talk is about shooting Malaria mosquito's (with a DVD burner laser: CHEAP). Is that what you were looking for?

Here is a talk by librarian Brewster Kahle on book archiving. He created the Internet Archive internet.org.

With Google, its important to make a contract so that the content is really open to all.

Not just countries but also industries have benefited from lack of protection against designs: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toaster_from_scratch.html

I was several times more impressed with William Kamkwamba.
http://www.ted.com/talks/william_kamkwamba_on_building_a_windmill.html

...surely in an Orwellian sort of way. "Freedom" commonly means "US puppet;" the actual freedom I envision for these states has them reaching out for the change they want, regardless of which outside state it benefits. Now, granted, by realities of their self-interest it will benefit them to lease American technology, but it won't be in the way that a lot of horseshit is currently put in place -- for the venal interest of a corrupt few, where a charitable view is then taken of the benefits when a worker in Niger makes 14 dollars a week instead of 12.

Oh yeah, and I'm not sure if it's been plugged yet (god forbid an AC read the other comments or more than the summary before spouting off...) but the goalpost should be the crypto-anarchist solution.

And even now, there are some serious questions raised from the social darwinist types. What does it mean, exactly, to be human -- and what is the future of reproduction? Perfectly average people doing what a machine (eventually) could do better, and simply spawning, again and again... leading lives without conflict or risks.

Reminds me of the TED talk about washing machines. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html

No really. Reason why is that Hans Rosling points out that the majority of humans alive do not have even a washing machine. Which is a rather fundamental minimum of home appliances that we take for granted. It gives some idea of just how little resources about 5 out of 7 billion humans actually consumer per head. By some measures you'll hear the 1 billion wealthiest humans have a resource footprint equal or greater of the other 6 billion combined. It's not a sustainable inequality from any point of view. I don't see how it will stablise without a heroic effort of foresight and planning (not gunna happen), or a huge readjustment by either highly disruptive technology (hopefully) or socio-economic upheaval (include unpleasant war and terrorism in that).

So it's by that accident things are reasonable sustainable now - in the short term at least until everyone wants a washing machine.

Firewall won't help you against a infected laptop connecting directly to a PLC.

See this article or, even better, Ralph Langner's TED talk.

Oh, but don't you know: the rich are superior, attaining heights of experience unmatched by mere peasant mortals. The utility they derive matches their income perfectly, dollar for dollar, as those who take their values from pop economics have always known.

Just fucking with you all.

That's an interesting stance. It's always seemed to me that design patents seem inherintly more just. After all, there should be an infinite number of ways of designing the look and feel of your interface.

So apple patented the design of a home screen consisting of rectangular icons with a 1:1 aspect ratio and corners clipped by a circle with a diameter 90% of the width. Why wouldn't I, as a competitor, want to make a product that looked different? Mine will have round icons instead. problem solved. Yeah, some people just want to make a knockoff product that looks like an iphone. Design patents make that hard. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

The courts decided to exempt clothing design from copyright protection precisely because of the reason you cite (1:58 into the talk). They didn't want someone owning the idea of using a button in a certain place, or having a cuff on your sleeve.

I think you have bought into too many rumors, half stories and speculations. Post PC era is already here and everyone but Microsoft sees it. It's all about using smart devices to "touch" the cloud. I think you should watch Kevin Kelly's talk from 4 years ago http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html. It's really insightful and he describes this post PC (PC = central small scale non-connected computing) really well which is all about increasing connections, and intelligence of things around us. But someone still has to program all those devices. In fact programming is going to be more popular than ever before (either you program or you will be programmed).

Do you believe there are giant purple space bunnies who live in caves on the far side of the moon?

Sure, technically speaking there might be, but there is nothing in our experience of the real world that would give us any reason to give such an absurd proposition a moment's thought.

When most atheists assert a lack of belief in "God", this is what they mean -- that the probability of a "God" existing is infinitesimal, and it's best to go about life not worrying about "God" any more than one would worry about gigantic purple space bunnies.

So why do atheists spend so much time talking about something they don't believe in? Because the influence of religion in our society (particularly Christianity in the U.S.) is so pervasive that it seems normal. In spite of the alleged benefit of religions, they have caused a lot of evil in the world, so why should we accept the massive brainwashing of children to believe in these ancient myths as something "normal"? So atheists must be the ones who appear to make noise, but they're up against the deafening silence of a monolithic status quo which is horribly broken and must be fixed.

Here, listen to a real atheist, and find out what they're actually talking about, instead of just trying to imagine what they must think.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html