Similarly to every other character, song, story or piece of art, it is not the same piece.
At best, it is Xombie Prostitute Lorax, dead and reaminated, sold to whatever Corporation wants to shove it's hand up Lorax's ass to put on a show for the kids.
As long as "kids" don't realize this, it helps sell that stuff.
When they do, it tends to have the opposite reaction.:)
I'm thinking actual novel, not a pick your own adventure.
Why not do it through an intricate set of links on character's names? Every name when mentioned the first time in interaction, would be linked to the current story from their point of view. It would be interesting as a collab.
Everyone writing one POV, but must interact per scenes.
I would go with an arc and definite plotline, and leave ALL subplots to the interaction as it developed.
It would be fitting if the majority of users who were directed to the myface site concluded that they actually liked, or wanted to use google's features now that someone let them know they were there...
I don't know if the broken window theory has any merit.
Of course you do. Think back to a time where you acted that way because of a broken window.
You know you've done it, that's why it sounds plausible.
Thus, it happens.
Is it a significant enough effect to cause wholesale environmental changes? Perhaps not in itself, but it would act as a constant driving factor, I would think, even if on a subtle level.
If you could post a link to this philosophy or write up with a fuller explanation of your opinion, I would appreciate it, because I can see it as a useful distinction.
However, while interesting, I guess that I do not agree.
There are no false "statements of facts". There are statements that are false, but these do not include a fact. There are statements that are true, and they may or may not contain an explicit fact.
"Fact" seems to be reserved for things that have really occurred or are actually the case.
So to have a statement of fact it indeed has to be true or it is simply a false statement, even if it is not of a belief or opinion.
"the current policy of the people who run the free world, is that only stable democracies are tolerated to have nukes. "
You are incorrect in that statement, and then go on to give the real reason the people who run the world don't want Iran to have nukes:
If Iran had nukes, then we could not push them around as much, and there would be NO talk of a war or invasion. They would be less subject to influence, as they would have the power to back up their authority.
The current "policy" (if you can call it that) of the people who run the free world is: "I got mine - Fuck you." After all, having nuclear weapons gives them the power to do so.
And that is all. They don't want other players to gain more power because it reduces their own.
LYour all or nothing approach is no better that the strawman you propose. No one is suggesting that this affect anyone other than FB.
FB certainly has the ability to delete data that is on it's servers.
In fact, I looked at their policies, thanks to another post:
It typically takes about one month to delete an account, but some information may remain in backup copies and logs for up to 90 days.
No, it looks to me based on this that within 90 days your data on their site is deleted. If this is not the case, they need to update this document to declare what they keep when deleting your account!
The paradigm shift needs to be in how people view sites like Facebook,
No. Just no. It's my fucking data, on Flickr, damn it! If I choose to delete my copy from the site, Flickr better not keep displaying it, or giving it out to other people. Whether other people have downloaded it or not is moot to this discussion.
You seem to disagree. Why? Are you that eager to sell yourself to the corporations for nothing? While they claim copyright over anything posted on the Internet, as you seem to want...
Just wait until the carriers start copyrighting everything sent over their networks. That will be fun.
The problem is that people who used to be related in 2nd degree are in an environment (Facebook) where they are much *MUCH* more likely to then be linked in the 1st degree. And so on.
In fact, FB itself puts pressure to narrow the degrees of separation of every active member.
So, NO, this data mining mission means nothing about how people are really connected outside of FB.
Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the people they have brainwashed (and yes, I mean that quite literally), tortured (and yes, I mean that quite literally), killed, or bankrupted through intimidation using the legal system.
And they are infiltrating centers of power, a secret society beyond government bounds.
But other than that, they are 'at best annoying and a scam'.
And here I thought the distinction was a bit subtler than that.
If I recall correctly, a free market was determined as necessary for "true capitalism" but that they were not defined as the same thing.
Certainly it uses the concept of a free market as one in which the maximum benefits can be achieved, and goes on in that vein. However, this appears to be quite distinct from claiming they are the same thing, as you infer.
In fact, because the work talks about them distinctly (as in a less free market is bad for capitalism), it is pretty certain that Adam Smith thought they were distinct, too.
We are of course living in the metaverse created by the 31337 memes soon released after the advent of the synthesis of programming and psychology.
Forcing functions and the like are prevalent and redirecting all our energies in crazy insane ways.
The major gist of that book is an UR language, that is able to reprogram people without even their knowledge. This is that UR language. Advertising is a window dressing to the real advent of psy-ops running through our brains.
Well, that may be TMI. I hope that at least the men in grey are polite!
phone companies don't have the abilty to handle micropayments. It's too expensive for them to meter each call and to bill them individually,
Soo...it is too expensive for phone companies to handle micropayments yet:
In the long term, it will lead to more websites and better revenue, not less.
Now, if you could just explain the small problem of how micropayments are too expensive for the phone companies but will not be too expensive for web sites, your argument will be all set.
You and the OP are essentially advocating that every criminal be punished to the fullest extend of the law for what could have happened.
What? Does that not occur to you that in your regime speeding becomes 1st degree murder. So executions all around.
Meanwhile, your "opponent" (since you obviously see them as that) is merely claiming that perhaps 10 years is a BIT MUCH for breaking into a computer system causing $800,000 of "damage".
The person you are arguing against has stated repeatedly that they believe what the guy did was wrong.
Therefore your shill insistent calls to somehow "Prove he was justified!!!" are just bullshit, designed to pile a little more on your pile of crap arguments.
Someone decides to fire off an automatic rifle in the general direction of your family reunion. Do you want the book thrown at him for what he did or should he be given the benefit of the doubt?
Yes, please go to a nice emotionally based analogy tangent, when we have a perfectly understandable situation in front of us to talk about. Doing so solves nothing, and is an indication that you agrument does not hold up.
Either you are doing so to generalize your arguments so this case falls within the boundaries, or you are tyring to sway logic through emotional appeal.
If it's the former, do YOU want the death penalty for speeders or not? If not, you are not following your own logic.
If it's the latter, while a it is a decent rhetorical trick, I find myself unswayed by the emotional argument you present.
Slashdot Mirror
They weren't Anonymous!
It's obvious - if they were, they wouldn't have been arrested. You can't find someone who is actually anonymous! Duh.
Just how stupid are reporters these days?
Similarly to every other character, song, story or piece of art, it is not the same piece.
At best, it is Xombie Prostitute Lorax, dead and reaminated, sold to whatever Corporation wants to shove it's hand up Lorax's ass to put on a show for the kids.
As long as "kids" don't realize this, it helps sell that stuff.
When they do, it tends to have the opposite reaction. :)
Regards.
I'm thinking actual novel, not a pick your own adventure.
Why not do it through an intricate set of links on character's names? Every name when mentioned the first time in interaction, would be linked to the current story from their point of view. It would be interesting as a collab.
Everyone writing one POV, but must interact per scenes.
I would go with an arc and definite plotline, and leave ALL subplots to the interaction as it developed.
It would be fitting if the majority of users who were directed to the myface site concluded that they actually liked, or wanted to use google's features now that someone let them know they were there...
I don't know if the broken window theory has any merit.
Of course you do. Think back to a time where you acted that way because of a broken window.
You know you've done it, that's why it sounds plausible.
Thus, it happens.
Is it a significant enough effect to cause wholesale environmental changes? Perhaps not in itself, but it would act as a constant driving factor, I would think, even if on a subtle level.
Hmm.
If you could post a link to this philosophy or write up with a fuller explanation of your opinion, I would appreciate it, because I can see it as a useful distinction.
However, while interesting, I guess that I do not agree.
There are no false "statements of facts". There are statements that are false, but these do not include a fact. There are statements that are true, and they may or may not contain an explicit fact.
"Fact" seems to be reserved for things that have really occurred or are actually the case.
So to have a statement of fact it indeed has to be true or it is simply a false statement, even if it is not of a belief or opinion.
Regards.
So, I am a bit confused. In your system it is possible to have false "facts"?
Nope.
The government would have to outsource the military action to another country.
They have the tech, but not the Will of enough people behind them to have predators shooting at people in downtown Peoria.
Sorry, the US government does NOT have a large army that would "happily shoot you" on a mass scale.
At least if you are an American, on American soil.
Such a government might just be forced out by the military and protesters if it came to that.
Perhaps you lack any contact with people in the military and that is why you try to dehumanize them?
"the current policy of the people who run the free world, is that only stable democracies are tolerated to have nukes. "
You are incorrect in that statement, and then go on to give the real reason the people who run the world don't want Iran to have nukes:
If Iran had nukes, then we could not push them around as much, and there would be NO talk of a war or invasion. They would be less subject to influence, as they would have the power to back up their authority.
The current "policy" (if you can call it that) of the people who run the free world is: "I got mine - Fuck you." After all, having nuclear weapons gives them the power to do so.
And that is all. They don't want other players to gain more power because it reduces their own.
It doesn't matter *what* the Buyer wants.
PayPal really has no right to have a third party destroy the item, either.
They do not own it. The Buyer does not own it. The Seller still owns it.
If the Buyer doesn't want the merch, and refuse to pay for it, they have no say in what happens to it, the Seller still owns the item!
If they refuse to give it up, they are liable for the cash. If they destroy it they are liable for cash
The fact that PayPal has a "policy" doesn't make it legal to destroy someones stuff.
How is this any better than going into someones home and smashing their stuff?
Yes and No.
LYour all or nothing approach is no better that the strawman you propose. No one is suggesting that this affect anyone other than FB.
FB certainly has the ability to delete data that is on it's servers.
In fact, I looked at their policies, thanks to another post:
It typically takes about one month to delete an account, but some information may remain in backup copies and logs for up to 90 days.
No, it looks to me based on this that within 90 days your data on their site is deleted. If this is not the case, they need to update this document to declare what they keep when deleting your account!
The paradigm shift needs to be in how people view sites like Facebook,
No. Just no. It's my fucking data, on Flickr, damn it! If I choose to delete my copy from the site, Flickr better not keep displaying it, or giving it out to other people. Whether other people have downloaded it or not is moot to this discussion.
You seem to disagree. Why? Are you that eager to sell yourself to the corporations for nothing? While they claim copyright over anything posted on the Internet, as you seem to want...
Just wait until the carriers start copyrighting everything sent over their networks. That will be fun.
Regards.
It has been found out that employees are spending 5-20 hours handling IM and twitter, now that emails are banned.
If they would only stop screwing around and make the company gobs of money without taking up any time!
NO.
The problem is that people who used to be related in 2nd degree are in an environment (Facebook) where they are much *MUCH* more likely to then be linked in the 1st degree. And so on.
In fact, FB itself puts pressure to narrow the degrees of separation of every active member.
So, NO, this data mining mission means nothing about how people are really connected outside of FB.
I would like to know how someone who has sex with consenting adults can be considered a 'casual rapist'.
Please elucidate the points on which you are basing your statement.
Regards.
Scientology is at best annoying and a scam.
Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the people they have brainwashed (and yes, I mean that quite literally), tortured (and yes, I mean that quite literally), killed, or bankrupted through intimidation using the legal system.
And they are infiltrating centers of power, a secret society beyond government bounds.
But other than that, they are 'at best annoying and a scam'.
Regards.
Until they sold it to a geothermal power generation company, which put caps on all the geysers.
Regards.
Your LOGOS will not work here! We know too well the ways of the Farce,
And here I thought the distinction was a bit subtler than that.
If I recall correctly, a free market was determined as necessary for "true capitalism" but that they were not defined as the same thing.
Certainly it uses the concept of a free market as one in which the maximum benefits can be achieved, and goes on in that vein. However, this appears to be quite distinct from claiming they are the same thing, as you infer.
In fact, because the work talks about them distinctly (as in a less free market is bad for capitalism), it is pretty certain that Adam Smith thought they were distinct, too.
You are obnoxious, and probably quite wrong.
You "lose".
Regards.
Of his own book.
We are of course living in the metaverse created by the 31337 memes soon released after the advent of the synthesis of programming and psychology.
Forcing functions and the like are prevalent and redirecting all our energies in crazy insane ways.
The major gist of that book is an UR language, that is able to reprogram people without even their knowledge. This is that UR language. Advertising is a window dressing to the real advent of psy-ops running through our brains.
Well, that may be TMI. I hope that at least the men in grey are polite!
Regards.
phone companies don't have the abilty to handle micropayments. It's too expensive for them to meter each call and to bill them individually,
Soo...it is too expensive for phone companies to handle micropayments yet:
In the long term, it will lead to more websites and better revenue, not less.
Now, if you could just explain the small problem of how micropayments are too expensive for the phone companies but will not be too expensive for web sites, your argument will be all set.
Regards.
He also is deluding himself that "average people" aren't affected by all of this.
Of course they are. Who does he think is paying for all of those lawyers?
Regards.
Yes, it is mandatory. You can be in the faction that isn't in any factions, though. :)
More practically, my argument works much better if BTC has value and that "fact" is agreed upon up front.
Regards.
Are you insane?
You and the OP are essentially advocating that every criminal be punished to the fullest extend of the law for what could have happened.
What? Does that not occur to you that in your regime speeding becomes 1st degree murder. So executions all around.
Meanwhile, your "opponent" (since you obviously see them as that) is merely claiming that perhaps 10 years is a BIT MUCH for breaking into a computer system causing $800,000 of "damage".
The person you are arguing against has stated repeatedly that they believe what the guy did was wrong.
Therefore your shill insistent calls to somehow "Prove he was justified!!!" are just bullshit, designed to pile a little more on your pile of crap arguments.
Someone decides to fire off an automatic rifle in the general direction of your family reunion. Do you want the book thrown at him for what he did or should he be given the benefit of the doubt?
Yes, please go to a nice emotionally based analogy tangent, when we have a perfectly understandable situation in front of us to talk about. Doing so solves nothing, and is an indication that you agrument does not hold up.
Either you are doing so to generalize your arguments so this case falls within the boundaries, or you are tyring to sway logic through emotional appeal.
If it's the former, do YOU want the death penalty for speeders or not? If not, you are not following your own logic.
If it's the latter, while a it is a decent rhetorical trick, I find myself unswayed by the emotional argument you present.
Regards.
Excuse me, friend, I'd rather see a post telling other people to do some damn research.
Especially compared to one trying to use some sort of faux social conformity pressure to imply they are somehow behaving badly for doing so.
Regards.