One thing that is specifically forbidden to be used is who you associate with or who you are related to. That's how we "dealt with it".
Gitouttahere! We don't need any of your socialist Eurotrash ideas! Here in the Land Of The Free(tm), giant faceless corporations can do anything they want with our personal information, the way God and George Washington and Ayn Rand intended!
I love how people keep eating at Wendys and therefore don't eat at McDonalds.
I love how people who don't eat at McDonalds keep telling everyone how they don't eat fast food... if you can understand them around the mouthful of Wendy's.
present the same amount of scientific research against a popular mainstream thinking and the scientist of today will call for you to be fired and blacklisted
[sigh] I may regret asking this, but would you care to present any actual examples? Note: some guy screaming "help, I'm being oppressed!" doesn't count.
Absent empirical evidence, you have no a priori knowledge about a natural phenomenon. Once you've gathered some evidence, you may be able to show that a mathematical model of the phenomenon is reasonable, and make inferences on that basis--but you must have the evidence first. Even establishing that the phenomenon exists is part of the process of gathering empirical evidence. Where Aristotle and the other early natural philosophers went wrong was asserting that things existed with no evidence whatsoever; although the phrase "natural philosophy" hung on for quite a while, it was the insistence of Galileo and his contemporaries on applying logic (including math) to evidence, rather than depending on logic alone, that created science as we understand it today.
It really makes me sad how many geeks, who spend much of their adolescence and young adult lives complaining (quite justifiably) about our toxic jock-centered culture, still manage to absorb a lot of the lessons of that culture and carry them into adulthood. I understand how it happens--it's much the same reason so many children of abusive parents grow up to be abusers themselves--but that doesn't make it okay. A big part of becoming an adult is learning to move past that, to be a better person than you were conditioned to be.
You never know. A few years back, I moved to Minneapolis for a couple of years while my now-fiancee stayed in Denver. We kept things going with lots and lots of phone calls and e-mails and the occasional visit until I came back. Obviously that worked out okay.
Experimental proof that the Slashmind thinks we can slam the government for privacy problems in multiple areas, but not in some very specific ones. The future does not bode well for privacy since there are some areas which SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.
He says. On Slashdot.
There is no such thing as "the Slashmind." This is a big site with a large number of users who have diverse opinions on practically every political issue, and even more diverse combinations of opinions on combinations of issues. Slashdotters, as a group, aren't liberal or conservative or any other ready-made label; individuals may be, to be sure, but the group is just made up of too many different people to hold a coherent opinion on anything. Which is as it should be.
In general, I've noticed that people who complain about groupthink on Slashdot are usually pushing their own extreme agenda, and "everyone on Slashdot thinks alike!" is code for "not everyone on Slashdot thinks like me! Waaaah!"
Many times by NOT making decision you already made one, and those who are in the field know very well how to put people on the spot and, even without blinking an eyelid, the future of the sheeples have already been pre-arranged
That sounds very grand and sinister, but it doesn't actually say much. Care to give some examples?
And yes, they make the decisions. You are a fool if you think that it's just suggestions. I've worked in corporate environments long enough to know that the people who "prepare" the decision are really the ones making it, because by the selection you make, the way you present the alternatives and the data you choose to use or discard, you can pretty much make sure that any of the choices left is in your interest.
We're talking about advertising here, not actual purchases. Now, I have no doubt that advertising can influence people to buy things they normally wouldn't buy, or buy Brand Y when they'd normally buy Brand X, and that the first links to come up in a Google search are the ones that most of the time ultimately lead to money changing hands--but no one is actually eliminating choices with targeted ads, for God's sake. Buyers still have the choice to find what they actually want.
Not a "maybe", they will realize they need some of you back on an all-but-permanent basis.
They may realize it, but that doesn't mean they'll admit it, because that would mean admitting management was wrong, and one of the cardinal rules of management is that Management Is Never Wrong. Employees may be wrong, customers may be wrong, suppliers may be wrong, but Management Is Never Wrong. How could they be wrong? They've studied Management! They know how to Manage Things!
And they will hold to this even as the company collapses, because in the age of the golden parachute, there's no incentive to do otherwise. The company may go bankrupt, but you can be damn sure they'll loot every remaining penny from it before the end. And then go on to an equivalent position at another company where they can do the same thing, because the managerial class looks after its own.
Not that I've ever actually seen this happen, of course. The above is completely speculative. Yep.
Or the countries that need cheap drugs the most will say "screw your IP law" and start breeding their own drug-producing rabbits (or whatever) regardless of what the WTO and similar organizations have to say. This kind of thing has already happened with more conventional methods of drug production and there was a lot of kerfluffle but nobody went to war over it. Once any useful application of the laws of nature is out there, people will make use of it if they perceive doing so to be in their interests.
At a guess, it's that rabbits make good experimental subjects when you want to work on mammals larger than mice and rats, because they're famous for breeding like... um... rabbits.
Profit is the measurement of how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted. Therefore, it is not always evil and always has an element of good to it.
Thanks for explaining the tenets of your religion. Now, any time you want to discuss economics, let us know.
Out of all the problems the world faces, drugs are the least important, and I'm very tired of drug addicts ceaselessly bringing up the War on Drugs like it was the single most pressing issue our nation has ever faced.
The ease of implementation of the post-9/11 surveillance state, the increasing militarization of police forces, the fact that "the land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate in the world... all of them trace back quite directly to the War on (Some) Drugs. So while it obviously isn't the most pressing issue our nation has ever faced, you could make a pretty good argument that it's among the most pressing issues we face right now.
Jack Russel/Doberman cross (yes, really, and no we don't know)
Well, I can guess. I met a guy once who had a Dachshund/Doberman mix; I asked him how that happened and he said he got the dog from a breeder who specializes in this cross, and did it by holding up the male Dachshund behind the female Doberman while they did their thing. Neither dog seemed to object, so what the hell...
Otherwise there would be very little genetic diversity between father and son regarding fertility, and we know that to be false.
Not necessarily; the determining factors in fertility could just as easily be on the autosomal chromosomes (the of which nearly everyone gets one copy from each parent, and aren't involved in sex determination). Given that these chromosomes make up most of our genomes, in fact, you'd kind of expect that.
[snort] Kid, I know a hell of a lot more about my body--and your body, and everyone else's body--than you ever will. And while I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about network engineering as I am about biology and medicine, I know enough to know how complex it is. So do the MIT researchers, for that matter, else they wouldn't be using the approach they are. We don't need genetic algorithms and the like to model simple systems.
The best thing to do here would be acknowledge that you said something dumb--it's okay, everyone does sometimes--and move on. Instead you're trying to defend an indefensible position, and making a fool of yourself by doing so. Just let it go.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that is specifically forbidden to be used is who you associate with or who you are related to. That's how we "dealt with it".
Gitouttahere! We don't need any of your socialist Eurotrash ideas! Here in the Land Of The Free(tm), giant faceless corporations can do anything they want with our personal information, the way God and George Washington and Ayn Rand intended!
I love how people keep eating at Wendys and therefore don't eat at McDonalds.
I love how people who don't eat at McDonalds keep telling everyone how they don't eat fast food ... if you can understand them around the mouthful of Wendy's.
present the same amount of scientific research against a popular mainstream thinking and the scientist of today will call for you to be fired and blacklisted
[sigh] I may regret asking this, but would you care to present any actual examples? Note: some guy screaming "help, I'm being oppressed!" doesn't count.
A priori knowledge absent of empirical evidence.
Absent empirical evidence, you have no a priori knowledge about a natural phenomenon. Once you've gathered some evidence, you may be able to show that a mathematical model of the phenomenon is reasonable, and make inferences on that basis--but you must have the evidence first. Even establishing that the phenomenon exists is part of the process of gathering empirical evidence. Where Aristotle and the other early natural philosophers went wrong was asserting that things existed with no evidence whatsoever; although the phrase "natural philosophy" hung on for quite a while, it was the insistence of Galileo and his contemporaries on applying logic (including math) to evidence, rather than depending on logic alone, that created science as we understand it today.
This.
It really makes me sad how many geeks, who spend much of their adolescence and young adult lives complaining (quite justifiably) about our toxic jock-centered culture, still manage to absorb a lot of the lessons of that culture and carry them into adulthood. I understand how it happens--it's much the same reason so many children of abusive parents grow up to be abusers themselves--but that doesn't make it okay. A big part of becoming an adult is learning to move past that, to be a better person than you were conditioned to be.
You never know. A few years back, I moved to Minneapolis for a couple of years while my now-fiancee stayed in Denver. We kept things going with lots and lots of phone calls and e-mails and the occasional visit until I came back. Obviously that worked out okay.
Experimental proof that the Slashmind thinks we can slam the government for privacy problems in multiple areas, but not in some very specific ones. The future does not bode well for privacy since there are some areas which SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.
He says. On Slashdot.
There is no such thing as "the Slashmind." This is a big site with a large number of users who have diverse opinions on practically every political issue, and even more diverse combinations of opinions on combinations of issues. Slashdotters, as a group, aren't liberal or conservative or any other ready-made label; individuals may be, to be sure, but the group is just made up of too many different people to hold a coherent opinion on anything. Which is as it should be.
In general, I've noticed that people who complain about groupthink on Slashdot are usually pushing their own extreme agenda, and "everyone on Slashdot thinks alike!" is code for "not everyone on Slashdot thinks like me! Waaaah!"
Increased wear and tear? For real? Citations?
Knock yourself out. Only not literally, because that would hurt.
Created by Alfred Ely Beach, people ...
So Beach created not only the subway system, but also the people to ride in it? He must have been a very busy guy.
How about NOT even showing a better-off individual cheaper alternatives on a flight search.
Which is scummy, to be sure, but doesn't sound anything like OP's hyperbolic scenario of doom.
Many times by NOT making decision you already made one, and those who are in the field know very well how to put people on the spot and, even without blinking an eyelid, the future of the sheeples have already been pre-arranged
That sounds very grand and sinister, but it doesn't actually say much. Care to give some examples?
And yes, they make the decisions. You are a fool if you think that it's just suggestions. I've worked in corporate environments long enough to know that the people who "prepare" the decision are really the ones making it, because by the selection you make, the way you present the alternatives and the data you choose to use or discard, you can pretty much make sure that any of the choices left is in your interest.
We're talking about advertising here, not actual purchases. Now, I have no doubt that advertising can influence people to buy things they normally wouldn't buy, or buy Brand Y when they'd normally buy Brand X, and that the first links to come up in a Google search are the ones that most of the time ultimately lead to money changing hands--but no one is actually eliminating choices with targeted ads, for God's sake. Buyers still have the choice to find what they actually want.
Not a "maybe", they will realize they need some of you back on an all-but-permanent basis.
They may realize it, but that doesn't mean they'll admit it, because that would mean admitting management was wrong, and one of the cardinal rules of management is that Management Is Never Wrong. Employees may be wrong, customers may be wrong, suppliers may be wrong, but Management Is Never Wrong. How could they be wrong? They've studied Management! They know how to Manage Things!
And they will hold to this even as the company collapses, because in the age of the golden parachute, there's no incentive to do otherwise. The company may go bankrupt, but you can be damn sure they'll loot every remaining penny from it before the end. And then go on to an equivalent position at another company where they can do the same thing, because the managerial class looks after its own.
Not that I've ever actually seen this happen, of course. The above is completely speculative. Yep.
Until owls start carrying UV flashlights, the fluorescent rabbits are probably safe.
If birds of prey start using electronics, we may have bigger problems on our hands.
Or the countries that need cheap drugs the most will say "screw your IP law" and start breeding their own drug-producing rabbits (or whatever) regardless of what the WTO and similar organizations have to say. This kind of thing has already happened with more conventional methods of drug production and there was a lot of kerfluffle but nobody went to war over it. Once any useful application of the laws of nature is out there, people will make use of it if they perceive doing so to be in their interests.
At a guess, it's that rabbits make good experimental subjects when you want to work on mammals larger than mice and rats, because they're famous for breeding like ... um ... rabbits.
Thomas Edison's inventions inventions fundamentally changed the human condition.
You might want to read up on the history of Edison's "inventions" some time. The Jobs-Edison comparison is actually very apt.
[sustained applause]
Profit is the measurement of how efficiently an endeavor is providing what is needed and wanted. Therefore, it is not always evil and always has an element of good to it.
Thanks for explaining the tenets of your religion. Now, any time you want to discuss economics, let us know.
Hydrogen can be infinitely compressed.
Edward Teller would like a word with you.
Out of all the problems the world faces, drugs are the least important, and I'm very tired of drug addicts ceaselessly bringing up the War on Drugs like it was the single most pressing issue our nation has ever faced.
The ease of implementation of the post-9/11 surveillance state, the increasing militarization of police forces, the fact that "the land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate in the world ... all of them trace back quite directly to the War on (Some) Drugs. So while it obviously isn't the most pressing issue our nation has ever faced, you could make a pretty good argument that it's among the most pressing issues we face right now.
If the mail service was not subsidised by the taxpayer
If more people bothered to learn how the finances of the USPS actually work, maybe we wouldn't need to have this conversation.
Jack Russel/Doberman cross (yes, really, and no we don't know)
Well, I can guess. I met a guy once who had a Dachshund/Doberman mix; I asked him how that happened and he said he got the dog from a breeder who specializes in this cross, and did it by holding up the male Dachshund behind the female Doberman while they did their thing. Neither dog seemed to object, so what the hell ...
Otherwise there would be very little genetic diversity between father and son regarding fertility, and we know that to be false.
Not necessarily; the determining factors in fertility could just as easily be on the autosomal chromosomes (the of which nearly everyone gets one copy from each parent, and aren't involved in sex determination). Given that these chromosomes make up most of our genomes, in fact, you'd kind of expect that.
[snort] Kid, I know a hell of a lot more about my body--and your body, and everyone else's body--than you ever will. And while I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about network engineering as I am about biology and medicine, I know enough to know how complex it is. So do the MIT researchers, for that matter, else they wouldn't be using the approach they are. We don't need genetic algorithms and the like to model simple systems.
The best thing to do here would be acknowledge that you said something dumb--it's okay, everyone does sometimes--and move on. Instead you're trying to defend an indefensible position, and making a fool of yourself by doing so. Just let it go.