"You seem to be parroting right-wing lies to justify your (probably pre-existing) beliefs. For instance, the "throwing up her hands" thing, which was taken out of context by right-wing news sources. Basically, you're a victim of right-wing propaganda; someone paid a "news" agency a lot of money to convince the gullible to believe right wing lies, and with your posts you just proved to them that it was money well-spent."
I am sorry to tell you that you are just wrong. I saw Clinton testify myself, on the news. It was NOT taken out of context. I heard the question and I saw her answer.
Second, I checked the references to the times involved, and unless somebody really screwed up in a major way, then there is a genuine time discrepancy. In the government's own records, not just according to some bozo reporter out to make a name for herself.
"If you had a credible source for that you would have given it."
I posted the first source that showed up on Google. But you don't have to take my word for it. Spend a few fucking minutes on Google yourself and see how many sources there are.
But even aside from that: regardless of the source, they cited references. No matter how biased you think the source may be, if you didn't check the references they cited you are simply blowing hot air.
"I guess I don't watch the "right" news channels. I didn't hear anything about Benghazi's investigation. Are you implying that the State Department had pre-knowledge of the assassination of an ambassador, or was somehow involved?"
It's been on the news. You mean you didn't even see the news clip showing Clinton testifying before Congress? Forget Right or Left -- I'm neither, anyway -- but you must have missed some news, indeed.
This isn't a partisan matter. It's a serious ethics matter.
As for what it implies: no, *I*, personally, am not implying that. But the evidence does seem to imply it.
"Although Biology-online is a nice sounding name, it doesn't look like much but another attempt to make money off clicks, not being a particularly great source of information or biology, but having stuff people want to click on anyway."
The problem is that Scientific American itself has become little more than an opinion whore.
Scientific American has chased me away with its unscientific political and social stance and rants. I can read that sh*t anywhere... I don't want or need to read it in a magazine that's supposed to be about science.
Their editorials have increasingly become politically motivated (and unrelated to actual science), as have their articles and their blog.
I haven't bought a copy in years because of this, and it's just as well because it's only gotten worse.
"If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree."
I agree in principle, but I don't agree with Clinton. Why?
Because SHE is wholly involved in the current web of lies. Remember Benghazi. And ask yourself how she could have announced the death of certain people at the embassy 15 minutes before it happened.
Then ask yourself why, when asked about Benghazi in a Congressional hearing, she sidestepped the questions by throwing up her hands and shouting, "What does it matter NOW?"
I have no problem with a woman President. I have a very BIG problem with Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for the first cockroach as President before I would vote for her.
You can't have one of the liars running the "open discussion" and then pretend that it's really open. You'd just be wasting everybody's time. Or worse.
"The key difference to an xbox controller, and the reason it relates to your original post is that all 5 axes (hand joystick x/y/twist + thumb joystick x/y could all be controlled with a single hand."
Yes, that's true.
"Supply and demand. I'm confident the $100 sticks would easily have been in the xbox controller price range had they been ubiquitously sold with a major console like that, in those kinds of numbers."
Also probably true. I wasn't criticizing, just making an observation. I used to drool over some of those nice joysticks, but it wasn't a budget priority at the time.
"I recall the old microsoft sidewinder was a pretty decent controller for that game as well. find this on google..."
It wasn't bad, but IMO it was overly complicated to use. My objection to the X-Box style was overcomplication, too. Too much coordinated effort needed from both hands.
I'm not saying there aren't other good controllers. But I stick by my assertion that Cyberman 2 was still the best overall controller out there.
"But in VHS v. BETA the better format did win out..."
It's a matter of opinion. Beta had a lot of advantages. Even in the beginning, you could pause a Beta with a clear picture; you could not do that with VHS. You could speed up or slow down the video; you could not with VHS. The tapes were smaller, and many people (it depended on who you talked to) claimed it had a better picture.
True, those features did come along on VHS players... but quite a while later.
"In this case, they're getting your consent by putting a big blue notification bar on every single Google page you visit, until you click on it to see the terms, which are presented in a single page of clear English, with a nice three-bullet summary at the top, with a sub-bullet that gives you a direct link to the opt in/out. "
In that case, Google may have actually improved. Personally, I am not even slightly interested so I haven't seen it. I've seem some of their old ones, though... which is why I haven't been interested.
I retract what I wrote earlier: a separate slider could be considered an "axis", but it is a very limited one. It requires a separate hand to operate it and it is usually meant to be set somewhere and left there.
In RC systems, a slider or 3-position switch is often afforded the distinction "channel", while "on-off" switches are often called "half channels", because of the amount of control they give. This is independent of the actual number of channels the radio has. So a transmitter with 2 normal sticks (4 channels), plus 1 slider (1 channel), plus 2 on-off switches is considered by many to be a 6-channel transmitter, even if it is a 7-channel radio.
So by those rules, a Cyberman 2 would be a 10-channel controller. (6 full controls + 8 on-off switches).
Although I have seen a few joysticks with twist, I was referring to the more typical "joysticks" found on mainstream game controllers. But it's true that some joysticks were quite nice.
The hat doesn't count as "more axes". It was merely one "joystick" mounted on another. Just like an XBox controller, you still just have 2 x 2-axis sticks (or buttons). Again granted, some joysticks had a little more but buttons don't count.
Thrust axis is a separate control that may be analog but it doesn't add an "axis" to the stick. That's what I was talking about. Remember that the Cyberman 2 has 8 buttons in addition to its 6 degrees of freedom.
To give an example: in a FPS (not flight sim), you could do all horizontal movement with 3 degrees (Fwd, Back, Sideways Left, Sideways Right, and turn), plus one degree for up and down, leaving 2 degrees left over for looking around. (You only need 2 axes because you are already using one for Turn.)
In a flight sim, you basically have Roll, Pitch, and Yaw, leaving 3 degrees for other things. Like aiming guns or missiles for example. The controller came with a copy of Descent, if you remember that, which had direct 3D movement (unlike an airplane) and used all 6 degrees.
"But the base controls aside, a good flightstick could be considered to have 5 axes."
A good one. As I recall the genuinely good ones also cost upward of $100. But again, really the hat should count as a secondary stick. The only difference is where it was mounted; it still adds up to the same number of "axes".
Well, it's true. Maybe you don't remember those days, but a big selling point of cable was that it didn't have commercials. You were paying $ in exchange for getting rid of them.
I predicted that wouldn't last, and I was correct.
Clarification: 6 degrees of freedom means it could move on 6 different axes. A joystick has only 2 axes. So with one control you could do all that you can with 2 joysticks and still have 2 axes left over.
So you could use the one control for both looking and moving around in a FPS, for example, as well as jump and crouch. (Which worked very well, by the way. It was my go-to controller for the Quake series.) Then you still had 8 buttons for other functions such as shoot, inventory, etc.
"Long term, I think we will go controller-less before too much longer. Between touch and "connect-like" systems, they will go away."
Maybe so. But the controller market illustrates that fad (and money) can win out... not necessarily the best controller. Much like the old VHS vs Beta market.
The greatest game controller yet invented was the Logitech Cyberman 2. It let you easily do with one hand what other controllers do with 2 separate joysticks, leaving the other hand free to push buttons. And it was very intuitive... no big learning curve like there is with the X-Box style controllers. (Many people insist that there is no big learning curve with those controllers, but that's simply false. They just grew up with that style so they're used to it. Take any young adult who hasn't used one before, and see just how big the learning curve is.)
In any case, the Cyberman II was accurate, simple, intuitive, easy to control, and well-built. It was used on the Space Shuttle for example (really). You won't find an X-Box-style controller there.
The difference was one of the only two controllers on the market that had a true 6 degrees of freedom. And it was much more usable than the other one which had a "ball" controller and a trigger. You had to hold it in both hands all the time. Cyberman 2 sat on the table or in your lap, and had a much more logical and usable button arrangement.
But it was too "different". Companies were writing games for X-Box style controllers and there just wasn't market support for it. So it faded out of existence, again much like the Betamax.
"Cable became dominant in the US after people got tired of trying to get a good signal, either in rural areas where the transmitters were distant, or in cities, where buildings caused multipath ghosting and other bad reception. Then people just got too damn lazy (or lived in areas with HOAs that forbade them) to put up antennas. "
You left a really HUGE part out. The part where you paid for cable in order to eliminate the commercials that were the funding source for broadcast. But (as I predicted many years ago), the advertising sneaked back in anyway, and now you're getting dinged at both ends: you still see the commercials AND you're paying $50 or more a month.
Everybody lost but the cable companies. And make no mistake: this did not come about by accident.
"Wait, you have a TV Show during prime time? Radio show? Yes, I am being a smart ass because you either completely miss the concept of advertising and how we are forced to listen to it, or choose to ignore a presented reality. I don't care how many people "you" sit and talk to about the dangers of technology unless you can hit the volume that every TV News caster does when they state "Follow us on Twitter" or "Follow us on Facebook"."
Are you incapable of having a discussion without making offensive personal comments? It is starting to seem so. I have tried to keep my end of the discussion to generalizations about people, rather than being insulting.
"Again with the me and you thing? Really, I opened showing the perspective I was looking at. Your Well, I also thought it was pretty clear that I meant "you" in a generic, non-personal sense seems a bit wishy washy, or is it only you that is allowed to make generalizations?"
No, I am DISAGREEING with you. You wrote "we". I, in effect, was saying "You, maybe, but leave me out of it." I DISAGREE that it affects US the same. If you mean something generically, why don't you use the word "people", or "most people" or some such, rather than "we", "us", and "you"?
In my initial reply, I used "you" because you used "we" and "our". When you do that, you are not being generic, you are specifically including yourself AND your readers. But I do not accept that I should be included in your little group of "we". Are WE clear on this point?
"Using 'you' in the form of attack like "It's your own damn fault" is still an attack on "me". Claiming it's a generalization like "they" or "those people" after the fact is not a correction."
Repeat: I used "you" because you had used "we" and "our". Those are usually considered INCLUSIVE terms unless your generalization is extremely broad: "We have 4 limbs. We live on Earth". Even then it is not necessarily true of all people.
I was trying to make a point. Way back in your original post, you didn't write "people", or "they". You used "we" and "our". I was disassociating myself from that group. You (again this time meant personally) cannot reasonably use terms like "we" and "our" as all-inclusive, then complain about my use of "you" in a similar sense. That's just ridiculous.
You wrote "we don't know how" and "Know what mushrooms and tree bark you can eat?" and "Governments have become as dependent on the same technology as you and I have."
But then you have a fit when someone else does exactly the same, in order to make a point.
"Most schools don't have Home Ec requirements any more. Most schools don't have Shops any more, at least not in the two States where my kid went to school."
As I stated earlier, the schools around here do. I do not pretend to speak for those in your area or areas. Nor should you pretend to speak for mine.
"It seems that there is some very confusing dialogue on your end. When I use a generalization you take it as a personal attack. When I mentioned advertising, you claimed 'you' are not impacted."
Generalization? Hmmm... "Governments have become as dependent on the same technology as you and I have." does not seem so much like a generalization to me. It says "you" and "I". But if it *IS* a generalization as you claim, then why can it not also be a generalization when *I* say "you"??? You (personally) cannot have that both ways. I won't speak for you, but I definitely am not confused. (Just to be clear, since it seems to be necessary, "you" and "I" in that last sentence refer to you, the individual, and I, the individual.)
"I'm claiming that we do have massive corporations at least appearing to try and make people dependents."
People. In general. Yes. I cannot honestly argue with this.
"Indeed, a questionable judgement from a "human rights" court."
On a more serious note: it has long been recognized in the U.S. that it is both a logical and practical impossibility to pretend that any kind of "right to not be offended" exists. It simply does not, and can not, work.
Any serious pretense of trying to enforce a "nothing offensive allowed" rule would bring down the Internet overnight. Too many people are offended by too many things.
" If "corporations are people my friends", then corporate data IS personal data. The evil starts by pretending that corporations have rights. Corporations have priviledges and responsibilities but they don't have rights because they are NOT people."
I agree. And who promoted that evil? The Supreme Court.
What many people (and even SCOTUS) don't seem to realize is what an enormously hypocritical concept that is. If corporations have "rights", then the vast majority of government regulation of corporations is unconstitutional! If the corporation is a person, and has rights, then if it's 18 years old it can vote! As ridiculous as that sounds, that's what they're saying.
They can have one, but they can't have both. Sooner or later, that particular house of cards will come down.
"Yes, you are correct that there must be breeding with other small tribes. No, this does not take away their ability to survive without outside intervention."
I did not make the latter claim. My only point was that they are not entirely self-sufficient and do require contact outside the group.
"First and foremost, I'm using "we" and "our" in very loose terms to discuss the implications to society as a whole, not my own personal experience."
Well, I also thought it was pretty clear that I meant "you" in a generic, non-personal sense.
"Your claim is like setting a bunch of booze around a bunch of teenagers, telling them over and over again how great it will make them, then claiming it's their own stupid fault after they get drunk and sick."
Bullshit. I've been standing around telling people what a bad idea some of this technology is. Now who's getting personal?
"Media and advertising, like it or not, play a massive role in our lives."
They do NOT play a massive role in my life. They really don't. If they play a massive role in yours (this time meant personally), then that's a choice you have made. I have made a different choice. My favorite piece of music is 300 years old, and I only pay attention to the advertising that I choose.
I'm sure that you will claim "It's a parents fault for putting their kid in front of a TV to begin with".
Well, I don't think you have any reason to be so sure of yourself. As mentioned earlier, I dislike many of the technology trends as much as anyone else. But I do make my opinions about the matter well-known; I don't just blindly sit there and take it like a sheep.
"Yes, we are teaching what we call "modern" alternatives in schools, but at what real cost?"
We are? Does your child have a class in "how to consume fast food"? I don't know what you're trying to say here. In our local schools, kids take woodshop as they always have, or "Home Ec" (the name varies from place to place) just like they always have. I have no idea what "modern alternatives" you are referring to.
"The world is not about me but society as a whole."
Methinks you are a little bit paranoid. Repeat: I was using YOU in a generic sense. As in "IF you are complaining about X, then stop because it's a choice you made." Aimed at the general readership. I have only made one personal comment, I labeled it as such, and it was pretty mild.
Slashdot Mirror
"You seem to be parroting right-wing lies to justify your (probably pre-existing) beliefs. For instance, the "throwing up her hands" thing, which was taken out of context by right-wing news sources. Basically, you're a victim of right-wing propaganda; someone paid a "news" agency a lot of money to convince the gullible to believe right wing lies, and with your posts you just proved to them that it was money well-spent."
I am sorry to tell you that you are just wrong. I saw Clinton testify myself, on the news. It was NOT taken out of context. I heard the question and I saw her answer.
Second, I checked the references to the times involved, and unless somebody really screwed up in a major way, then there is a genuine time discrepancy. In the government's own records, not just according to some bozo reporter out to make a name for herself.
"If you had a credible source for that you would have given it."
I posted the first source that showed up on Google. But you don't have to take my word for it. Spend a few fucking minutes on Google yourself and see how many sources there are.
But even aside from that: regardless of the source, they cited references. No matter how biased you think the source may be, if you didn't check the references they cited you are simply blowing hot air.
"I guess I don't watch the "right" news channels. I didn't hear anything about Benghazi's investigation. Are you implying that the State Department had pre-knowledge of the assassination of an ambassador, or was somehow involved?"
It's been on the news. You mean you didn't even see the news clip showing Clinton testifying before Congress? Forget Right or Left -- I'm neither, anyway -- but you must have missed some news, indeed.
This isn't a partisan matter. It's a serious ethics matter.
As for what it implies: no, *I*, personally, am not implying that. But the evidence does seem to imply it.
"Although Biology-online is a nice sounding name, it doesn't look like much but another attempt to make money off clicks, not being a particularly great source of information or biology, but having stuff people want to click on anyway."
The problem is that Scientific American itself has become little more than an opinion whore.
Scientific American has chased me away with its unscientific political and social stance and rants. I can read that sh*t anywhere... I don't want or need to read it in a magazine that's supposed to be about science.
Their editorials have increasingly become politically motivated (and unrelated to actual science), as have their articles and their blog.
I haven't bought a copy in years because of this, and it's just as well because it's only gotten worse.
By the way, Mrs. Clinton: it DOES matter now. And if you are planning to run for President, it isn't going to go away.
"If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree."
I agree in principle, but I don't agree with Clinton. Why?
Because SHE is wholly involved in the current web of lies. Remember Benghazi. And ask yourself how she could have announced the death of certain people at the embassy 15 minutes before it happened.
Then ask yourself why, when asked about Benghazi in a Congressional hearing, she sidestepped the questions by throwing up her hands and shouting, "What does it matter NOW?"
I have no problem with a woman President. I have a very BIG problem with Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for the first cockroach as President before I would vote for her.
You can't have one of the liars running the "open discussion" and then pretend that it's really open. You'd just be wasting everybody's time. Or worse.
"The key difference to an xbox controller, and the reason it relates to your original post is that all 5 axes (hand joystick x/y/twist + thumb joystick x/y could all be controlled with a single hand."
Yes, that's true.
"Supply and demand. I'm confident the $100 sticks would easily have been in the xbox controller price range had they been ubiquitously sold with a major console like that, in those kinds of numbers."
Also probably true. I wasn't criticizing, just making an observation. I used to drool over some of those nice joysticks, but it wasn't a budget priority at the time.
"I recall the old microsoft sidewinder was a pretty decent controller for that game as well. find this on google..."
It wasn't bad, but IMO it was overly complicated to use. My objection to the X-Box style was overcomplication, too. Too much coordinated effort needed from both hands.
I'm not saying there aren't other good controllers. But I stick by my assertion that Cyberman 2 was still the best overall controller out there.
"But in VHS v. BETA the better format did win out..."
It's a matter of opinion. Beta had a lot of advantages. Even in the beginning, you could pause a Beta with a clear picture; you could not do that with VHS. You could speed up or slow down the video; you could not with VHS. The tapes were smaller, and many people (it depended on who you talked to) claimed it had a better picture.
True, those features did come along on VHS players... but quite a while later.
"In this case, they're getting your consent by putting a big blue notification bar on every single Google page you visit, until you click on it to see the terms, which are presented in a single page of clear English, with a nice three-bullet summary at the top, with a sub-bullet that gives you a direct link to the opt in/out. "
In that case, Google may have actually improved. Personally, I am not even slightly interested so I haven't seen it. I've seem some of their old ones, though... which is why I haven't been interested.
I retract what I wrote earlier: a separate slider could be considered an "axis", but it is a very limited one. It requires a separate hand to operate it and it is usually meant to be set somewhere and left there.
In RC systems, a slider or 3-position switch is often afforded the distinction "channel", while "on-off" switches are often called "half channels", because of the amount of control they give. This is independent of the actual number of channels the radio has. So a transmitter with 2 normal sticks (4 channels), plus 1 slider (1 channel), plus 2 on-off switches is considered by many to be a 6-channel transmitter, even if it is a 7-channel radio.
So by those rules, a Cyberman 2 would be a 10-channel controller. (6 full controls + 8 on-off switches).
The hat doesn't count as "more axes". It was merely one "joystick" mounted on another. Just like an XBox controller, you still just have 2 x 2-axis sticks (or buttons). Again granted, some joysticks had a little more but buttons don't count.
Thrust axis is a separate control that may be analog but it doesn't add an "axis" to the stick. That's what I was talking about. Remember that the Cyberman 2 has 8 buttons in addition to its 6 degrees of freedom.
To give an example: in a FPS (not flight sim), you could do all horizontal movement with 3 degrees (Fwd, Back, Sideways Left, Sideways Right, and turn), plus one degree for up and down, leaving 2 degrees left over for looking around. (You only need 2 axes because you are already using one for Turn.)
In a flight sim, you basically have Roll, Pitch, and Yaw, leaving 3 degrees for other things. Like aiming guns or missiles for example. The controller came with a copy of Descent, if you remember that, which had direct 3D movement (unlike an airplane) and used all 6 degrees.
"But the base controls aside, a good flightstick could be considered to have 5 axes."
A good one. As I recall the genuinely good ones also cost upward of $100. But again, really the hat should count as a secondary stick. The only difference is where it was mounted; it still adds up to the same number of "axes".
Not in the U.S. In the beginning, you couldn't even get broadcast channels. Congress actually had to pass a law making cable companies carry them.
"HA!"
Well, it's true. Maybe you don't remember those days, but a big selling point of cable was that it didn't have commercials. You were paying $ in exchange for getting rid of them.
I predicted that wouldn't last, and I was correct.
Clarification: 6 degrees of freedom means it could move on 6 different axes. A joystick has only 2 axes. So with one control you could do all that you can with 2 joysticks and still have 2 axes left over.
So you could use the one control for both looking and moving around in a FPS, for example, as well as jump and crouch. (Which worked very well, by the way. It was my go-to controller for the Quake series.) Then you still had 8 buttons for other functions such as shoot, inventory, etc.
"Long term, I think we will go controller-less before too much longer. Between touch and "connect-like" systems, they will go away."
Maybe so. But the controller market illustrates that fad (and money) can win out... not necessarily the best controller. Much like the old VHS vs Beta market.
The greatest game controller yet invented was the Logitech Cyberman 2. It let you easily do with one hand what other controllers do with 2 separate joysticks, leaving the other hand free to push buttons. And it was very intuitive... no big learning curve like there is with the X-Box style controllers. (Many people insist that there is no big learning curve with those controllers, but that's simply false. They just grew up with that style so they're used to it. Take any young adult who hasn't used one before, and see just how big the learning curve is.)
In any case, the Cyberman II was accurate, simple, intuitive, easy to control, and well-built. It was used on the Space Shuttle for example (really). You won't find an X-Box-style controller there.
The difference was one of the only two controllers on the market that had a true 6 degrees of freedom. And it was much more usable than the other one which had a "ball" controller and a trigger. You had to hold it in both hands all the time. Cyberman 2 sat on the table or in your lap, and had a much more logical and usable button arrangement.
But it was too "different". Companies were writing games for X-Box style controllers and there just wasn't market support for it. So it faded out of existence, again much like the Betamax.
Maybe, if they got my clear, express consent by some means other than obscure fine print buried in a multi-page TOS.
I mean I have nothing against the general principle. But there isn't much chance I'd agree to it.
"Cable became dominant in the US after people got tired of trying to get a good signal, either in rural areas where the transmitters were distant, or in cities, where buildings caused multipath ghosting and other bad reception. Then people just got too damn lazy (or lived in areas with HOAs that forbade them) to put up antennas. "
You left a really HUGE part out. The part where you paid for cable in order to eliminate the commercials that were the funding source for broadcast. But (as I predicted many years ago), the advertising sneaked back in anyway, and now you're getting dinged at both ends: you still see the commercials AND you're paying $50 or more a month.
Everybody lost but the cable companies. And make no mistake: this did not come about by accident.
I cannot honestly accept that mystery modder's "troll" rating as anything other than somebody being a vindictive asshole.
I mean SERIOUSLY? "Troll" for saying BOTH the Republicans and Democrats are sucking eggs right now? When polls show it to be true?
I have deserved a "troll" mod once in a great while, but this ain't one of those times.
"Wait, you have a TV Show during prime time? Radio show? Yes, I am being a smart ass because you either completely miss the concept of advertising and how we are forced to listen to it, or choose to ignore a presented reality. I don't care how many people "you" sit and talk to about the dangers of technology unless you can hit the volume that every TV News caster does when they state "Follow us on Twitter" or "Follow us on Facebook"."
Are you incapable of having a discussion without making offensive personal comments? It is starting to seem so. I have tried to keep my end of the discussion to generalizations about people, rather than being insulting.
"Again with the me and you thing? Really, I opened showing the perspective I was looking at. Your Well, I also thought it was pretty clear that I meant "you" in a generic, non-personal sense seems a bit wishy washy, or is it only you that is allowed to make generalizations?"
No, I am DISAGREEING with you. You wrote "we". I, in effect, was saying "You, maybe, but leave me out of it." I DISAGREE that it affects US the same. If you mean something generically, why don't you use the word "people", or "most people" or some such, rather than "we", "us", and "you"?
In my initial reply, I used "you" because you used "we" and "our". When you do that, you are not being generic, you are specifically including yourself AND your readers. But I do not accept that I should be included in your little group of "we". Are WE clear on this point?
"Using 'you' in the form of attack like "It's your own damn fault" is still an attack on "me". Claiming it's a generalization like "they" or "those people" after the fact is not a correction."
Repeat: I used "you" because you had used "we" and "our". Those are usually considered INCLUSIVE terms unless your generalization is extremely broad: "We have 4 limbs. We live on Earth". Even then it is not necessarily true of all people.
I was trying to make a point. Way back in your original post, you didn't write "people", or "they". You used "we" and "our". I was disassociating myself from that group. You (again this time meant personally) cannot reasonably use terms like "we" and "our" as all-inclusive, then complain about my use of "you" in a similar sense. That's just ridiculous.
You wrote "we don't know how" and "Know what mushrooms and tree bark you can eat?" and "Governments have become as dependent on the same technology as you and I have."
But then you have a fit when someone else does exactly the same, in order to make a point.
"Most schools don't have Home Ec requirements any more. Most schools don't have Shops any more, at least not in the two States where my kid went to school."
As I stated earlier, the schools around here do. I do not pretend to speak for those in your area or areas. Nor should you pretend to speak for mine.
"It seems that there is some very confusing dialogue on your end. When I use a generalization you take it as a personal attack. When I mentioned advertising, you claimed 'you' are not impacted."
Generalization? Hmmm... "Governments have become as dependent on the same technology as you and I have." does not seem so much like a generalization to me. It says "you" and "I". But if it *IS* a generalization as you claim, then why can it not also be a generalization when *I* say "you"??? You (personally) cannot have that both ways. I won't speak for you, but I definitely am not confused. (Just to be clear, since it seems to be necessary, "you" and "I" in that last sentence refer to you, the individual, and I, the individual.)
"I'm claiming that we do have massive corporations at least appearing to try and make people dependents."
People. In general. Yes. I cannot honestly argue with this.
"We have a Government ma
"Indeed, a questionable judgement from a "human rights" court."
On a more serious note: it has long been recognized in the U.S. that it is both a logical and practical impossibility to pretend that any kind of "right to not be offended" exists. It simply does not, and can not, work.
Any serious pretense of trying to enforce a "nothing offensive allowed" rule would bring down the Internet overnight. Too many people are offended by too many things.
"Indeed, a questionable judgement from a "human rights" court."
Well, I find censorship offensive, don't you? :)
I think if I were in court, I'd bring that up and see what they say.
" If "corporations are people my friends", then corporate data IS personal data. The evil starts by pretending that corporations have rights. Corporations have priviledges and responsibilities but they don't have rights because they are NOT people."
I agree. And who promoted that evil? The Supreme Court.
What many people (and even SCOTUS) don't seem to realize is what an enormously hypocritical concept that is. If corporations have "rights", then the vast majority of government regulation of corporations is unconstitutional! If the corporation is a person, and has rights, then if it's 18 years old it can vote! As ridiculous as that sounds, that's what they're saying.
They can have one, but they can't have both. Sooner or later, that particular house of cards will come down.
"Yes, you are correct that there must be breeding with other small tribes. No, this does not take away their ability to survive without outside intervention."
I did not make the latter claim. My only point was that they are not entirely self-sufficient and do require contact outside the group.
"So you were actually just stating a personal preference. Again, not how it originally sounded, but fair enough."
Well, I do think it's a widely-shared preference. Maybe not universal.
"First and foremost, I'm using "we" and "our" in very loose terms to discuss the implications to society as a whole, not my own personal experience."
Well, I also thought it was pretty clear that I meant "you" in a generic, non-personal sense.
"Your claim is like setting a bunch of booze around a bunch of teenagers, telling them over and over again how great it will make them, then claiming it's their own stupid fault after they get drunk and sick."
Bullshit. I've been standing around telling people what a bad idea some of this technology is. Now who's getting personal?
"Media and advertising, like it or not, play a massive role in our lives."
They do NOT play a massive role in my life. They really don't. If they play a massive role in yours (this time meant personally), then that's a choice you have made. I have made a different choice. My favorite piece of music is 300 years old, and I only pay attention to the advertising that I choose.
I'm sure that you will claim "It's a parents fault for putting their kid in front of a TV to begin with".
Well, I don't think you have any reason to be so sure of yourself. As mentioned earlier, I dislike many of the technology trends as much as anyone else. But I do make my opinions about the matter well-known; I don't just blindly sit there and take it like a sheep.
"Yes, we are teaching what we call "modern" alternatives in schools, but at what real cost?"
We are? Does your child have a class in "how to consume fast food"? I don't know what you're trying to say here. In our local schools, kids take woodshop as they always have, or "Home Ec" (the name varies from place to place) just like they always have. I have no idea what "modern alternatives" you are referring to.
"The world is not about me but society as a whole."
Methinks you are a little bit paranoid. Repeat: I was using YOU in a generic sense. As in "IF you are complaining about X, then stop because it's a choice you made." Aimed at the general readership. I have only made one personal comment, I labeled it as such, and it was pretty mild.