So, if they're doing nothing wrong, why all the suggestions on ways to hide what you're doing?
Because the law has not caught up with electronic media?
It's 1950. You have a copyright-infringement claim, claiming that I made an illegal copy of a portrait. You may have the right to have me bring in my artwork under a court order (I do not know, IANAL, and I'm still trying to understand the discovery process).
You do NOT have the right to have me also bring in just about everything else I possess in my house.
It's 2009. You have a copyright-infringement claim, claiming that I made an illegal copy of some music using computer media. Evidently, you now have the right to have me bring in, under court order, all of my computer media - music, video, software, email exchanges and confidential business documents. In fact, today it's supposed to be evidently a victory to have someone go through all of that personal stuff to just get to the music files. Gee, I don't know, but in 1950, I don't think anyone was allowed to enter and rifle your home as part of the discovery process to ensure that all artwork was brought in.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - perhaps you've heard these words.
My liberty is seriously curtailed whenever my privacy is invaded. I am not a constitutional scholar, and so I don't know, but I suspect that just maybe the constitutional rights protecting privacy itself - while giving the state due process to violate that privacy under certain specific and limited conditions and circumstances - is a class of rights derived from the unalienable right to liberty, with all protections thereto.
So, your argument - that if you're doing nothing wrong, then why are you hiding? - whether in a civil or criminal context - is quite frankly disgusting.
As I write this, some mods have found your post to be either funny or interesting. I find your thinking to be neither. The idea that only the guilty want to hide things is dangerous and contrary to everything our country was founded on. And I repeat, disgusting.
Personally, I never want to hide anything or prevent anyone from seeing anything of mine - until someone wants to see, for any reason - and then I very much want to hide and not disclose; and that is just out of general principle. I was brought up free.
Wow. You're right. But I must compliment you - I'm usually just a Grammar Nazi when I get finicky. You've defined the new class of Anger Nazi! <snappy salute>
(Seriously, cheers and thanks for the advice. I'm not going to take it, though and no disrespect intended. By the time I calm down from this, I won't be able to re-post - the topic will be archived.)
...this falls under DISCOVERY, which is the process whereby each side in a civil suit can force the other to show what evidence they have about the case.
Wow. Great law. The defendant isn't DISCOVERING what evidence the plaintiff has, this is the plaintiff PRETENDING to DISCOVER if the defendant is innocent but really trying to DISCOVER more evidence.
"I have a case against you that you violated a copyright." "Fuck you, you're wrong." "Judge, before we go to court and I find out that I have to go fuck myself, I insist on the right to search and DISCOVER if he's telling the truth." "Well, since it's a DISCOVERY, here's your court order."
I am not a lawyer. But I do have a little common sense. This stinks. This stinks bad.
By the way to everyone who disagrees with my point and thinks that I don't get it, kindly answer this simple question: When did you stop beating your wife?
Fine, first kindly see my comment to my own post - I know it's a civil case.
Thank you, I mean that, for teaching me how to start looking up DISCOVERY.
So, given that you do know the law - how does discovery allow you to violate privacy to the extent that I identify, because it is most certainly that extensive a violation of privacy.
And where do you exercise your computer forensics expertise? In civil discoveries? And if so, just because the law is on your side, how do you rationalize this, morally?
Fuck me, I'm not done. Even Judge Judy knows better than this.
Plantiff: "You honor, she stole my CDs when she moved out. A friend saw her carrying out boxes plus who else would have done it?" Judge Judy: "Ms. X, did you take his CDs?" Defendant: "No, judge. I did not." Judge Judy: "I'm sorry, Mr. Z, but you have no proof. Under the law, there's nothing that I can do." Plaintiff: "Your honor, please - how about a warrant to search her home, business and all of her friends' and family's home - then I'll have proof." Judge Judy looks at Bert, narrows her eyes, admonishes the idiot to get a life because he's clueless and the law doesn't exist for him to conduct witch hunts and we fade to commercial.
Tell me how my point isn't any simpler than that. How in the fuck did we come to this as a people? Why in the fuck are any of us laying down for this?
My anger may be getting the better of me, but maybe that anger helps fuel my weak brain. How did we condone Gitmo? How did we let the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretapping go on?
How does the fucking camel get into the tent? He sticks his nose in first. Civil warrants to search hard drives have existed for more years than I can recall. That could very well be the camel's fucking nose.
Court orders to search hard drives aren't right - they're not even wrong.
If you get a warrant to search my house, you search my house.
No court believes that it would issue a single warrant to search part of my home, part of my business and parts of my friends' and family's homes.
But a warrant to search my hard drive is exactly that.
Restricting this search to the forensics expert of the MAFIAA's choosing but not allowing irrelevant info to pass on to them is exactly offensive and ridiculous. I'm frustrated my own following hyperbole, but I am so angry, this is the only metaphor that I can find - the beat cop gets to exercise the right to search everyplace you've been with a single warrant, but don't worry, he'll only tell the detectives about the stuff he found that's relevant.
The fucking MAFIAA's cases isn't one of governmental high crimes or misdemeanors, neither is it one involving a criminal case - it's a fucking civil case. How dare any court in the land grant such a mind-numbingly offensive violation of one's constitutional protection of privacy in a fucking civil case?
What we really need in the way of a male contraceptive is a contraceptive that prevents the birth of males.
The whole fucking planet is just getting to be too much of a sausage festival.
Studies have proven that guys get more tail when their percentage in the population is lower. My proposed draconian measure would come too late for many of you here, but the next generation of basement-living geeks would be scoring like never before!
Won't you all just please think of the children?
Am I being hilarious or do these words portend some other agenda? You be the mod.
Not only is the government not mandated to do it, but there are some most excellent laws that prevent the government from competing with private industry. Not only does this lead to gov't subcontractors but actually requires it some places.
Otherwise, I'd guarantee that the DOE and Air Force would have come out with their own PC operating system already.
1. Increased resolution, up from 720p (Apple is good at this now on the Core2Duo mini, so the barriers are gone) 2. Blu-Ray disk support (or however the hell that's abbreviated, sorry (plus, I only *think* Wii doesn't have this and XBox does - I'm no gamer, so I don't know) 3. Netflix support? Check out the Samsung BD-P1600 to see the integration referred to.... 4. If #3, then also maybe a similar rental deal with those guys that advertise games like Netflix 5. Certainly iTMS support then, for movies and games, even if they make the typical Apple mistake of bypassing 3 and 4, above 6. Certainly, by this point, the unit has everything required for access to a Apple user's shared movie and music files on his Mac - Apple TV is very cool (even though I opted to use a mini myself)
And FWIW, you can do a lot nowadays with their existing line and a bit a software for remote control: http://www.jaaduvnc.com/
Now, I'm not big-ass Apple fanboy trying to describe the gee-whiz-they-can-do-it-all meme.
I'm onto the business model, as you are. Apple was part of the Blu-Ray consortium, but has never brought out a product - it's been a while, but the dust has settled on the HD-DVD debate. Blu-Ray is getting cheaper, as are 1080p HDTVs - the latter of which is getting more common in every provider's lineup.
So - if it were my business, and have done the legwork for a technically winning product (for what it was) like Apple TV that failed in the market, but now have a better experience in my computer line supporting 1080p, and have gained experience playing in the HD and TV fields - but I restrict HD quality for my computer users (DRM evil, yadda yadda) - how would I proceed?
Apple TV 1080p w/ Blu-Ray.
But Apple TV didn't set the market on fire and Blu-Ray hasn't yet - how would I hedge my marketing bets?
By adding only a few percent more effort - a remote and some software - and also make it a gaming console.
This isn't a gaming console that will incorporate Apple TV. This may well be the new Apple TV that incorporates a gaming console.
I'd ride mine down to cash in my winning lottery ticket, buy the land, and endow part of the fund needed to launch a world-class museum. You can visit Edison's lab in Greenfield Villiage (Henry Ford Musuem, etc) in Dearborn, Michigan - which, if you ever get the chance, do it - you won't be disappointed, I guarantee.
It would be shame if Tesla doesn't become similarly remembered.
If I'd have had mod points, you'd have had one by now.
Besides the fact that this is a complete rumor, more towards the realm of "fabrication" than "rumor", too much evidence exists to deny it from both sides, and it's just plain false.
Are you stoned or something? The parent was objecting to the call for our feelings in TFS and likened it to language from Dr. Phil, instead of just business. And that being all that he said, that was all that I agreed with.
But don't let me stop you from being reminded that Apple exists, thus you must hate it. Just at least come up with an actual reason next time, then someone might take you seriously.
OK, I get it - you're not merely stoned - you're stupid on top of it.
Or, you've missed my post that I levelly support OS X, Windows and Linux - being able to run two of those simultaneously from my many Macs. Or my diatribes about the beauty of the Mac mini as a great HTPC.
Yeah, I'm feeding a troll - first, I'm marked redundant for giving a compliment, and now I have to listen to this crap from you? Karma's cheap. Bite me.
It doesn't really sound like they're copping out. It just sounds more like 150,000 projects is a whole lot more than they expected to get.
I agree, they don't sound like they're copping out.
They do, however, sound completely fucking stoopid.
A legitimate offer for US$10MM put on the internet, by a company with deep pockets, and the requirement for payout to this demographic is: a good idea to make the world better.
How did they not expect well in excess of 150k applications?
Even TFS said it was for the shell - it's just for the pretty and it's just to have protection against an exactly-appearing duplicate weaken their market/advertising impact.
Here's how I see the money trail playing out, in order of increasing cash, if this isn't some incredible hoax:
1. The hijacker gets $10MM 2. Various people not only find various lawsuits to exploit the situation, some are unique enough for big wins, moderated down by the vast proportions of controlling lawsuit funding involving a potential 8MM clients 3. The hijacker gets caught, most of the money is recovered, what isn't is left to the cronies or others 4. Whomever catches him is in for raises and promotions that affect lifetime earnings 5. Among the many hopefuls who start, someone is clever enough to write a truly novel about the incident, be it a report or a fictionalization based on the event. 6. And if all that comes to pass, and the event does gain sufficient national fear-mindshare, then the Hollywood crowd that makes it into a thriller of any sort.
And, if by the law that truth is stranger than fiction, you're the author or member of Hollywood that makes out on this by hearing about the idea here, first, then you'll owe me 10% as resource fee, negotiable by the proportionality of income. I just want to wet my beak, get a new TV and pay a few bills - I'm not greedy.
And on that note, I submit that anyone reading The Communist Manifesto might want to also read Keslo&Adler's The Capitalist Manifesto. FWIW, although not in Kindle format - http://www.kelsoinstitute.org/pdf/cm-entire.pdf - as I recall believing that converting a pdf to an acceptable format for the Kindle isn't impossible.
These are soft and non-predicting because they are rife with observer bias applied to anecdotal evidence. By example: Marx firmly believed that working alienated a man from his true self, and in his mind, rigorously proved it. Problem was, his ideas of work were assumed upon his readers, with his expectations that the target audience was an industrial-revolution nation, and further, that the abhorrent working conditions were going to remain as static as centuries of serfdom had, and finally, he was out of his depth that neither he nor any other European intellectual had cornered the market on defining the nature of a human's true self - that in itself is a fool's errand.
Controlling one's reaction to exposure to belief systems is an exercise best left to the reader.
This is direly on-topic, because so much of science is just as rife with observer bias applied to anecdotal evidence. By example: Einstein could not believe his initial GR outcome that the universe was non-static, so he jimmied the equations with a cosmological constant and later removed them. Hawking, in a great, "Wrong again, Albert!" moment, started refining the cosmological constant, also driven by his religion's belief system.
Scientists do this thinking that they are being whole persons - or worse, do not even notice often that they are doing this.
Precisely a driving reason for not only peer review, but the nasty tendency for science needing time for ideas to evolve: it takes time for the community to be born into a different socio-politico-religious mindset and to thereby see the bias and limitations of the scientific forebears. Sadly, this effect in and of itself is not universally recognized by scientists themselves.
Learning the objective skills that come so easily to some, and using them to poke holes in "soft sciences" builds a great mental tool for examination of physical sciences. It's never enough to have some sort of talent - one must rigorously exercise it.
Damn. I've actually said something intelligent on/. I ought to go buy lottery tickets or something to take advantage of this roll!
Absolutely not what you've asked for - but a possibly invaluable essay that I expect would be quite useful to guide your understanding during your quest.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks again for your help. I've calmed down and apologize for any invective. Kindly see my point here, if you would like: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1225765&cid=27865723
Compadre, maybe this is the best that I can do on the subject: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1225765&cid=27865723
So, if they're doing nothing wrong, why all the suggestions on ways to hide what you're doing?
Because the law has not caught up with electronic media?
It's 1950. You have a copyright-infringement claim, claiming that I made an illegal copy of a portrait. You may have the right to have me bring in my artwork under a court order (I do not know, IANAL, and I'm still trying to understand the discovery process).
You do NOT have the right to have me also bring in just about everything else I possess in my house.
It's 2009. You have a copyright-infringement claim, claiming that I made an illegal copy of some music using computer media. Evidently, you now have the right to have me bring in, under court order, all of my computer media - music, video, software, email exchanges and confidential business documents. In fact, today it's supposed to be evidently a victory to have someone go through all of that personal stuff to just get to the music files. Gee, I don't know, but in 1950, I don't think anyone was allowed to enter and rifle your home as part of the discovery process to ensure that all artwork was brought in.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - perhaps you've heard these words.
My liberty is seriously curtailed whenever my privacy is invaded. I am not a constitutional scholar, and so I don't know, but I suspect that just maybe the constitutional rights protecting privacy itself - while giving the state due process to violate that privacy under certain specific and limited conditions and circumstances - is a class of rights derived from the unalienable right to liberty, with all protections thereto.
So, your argument - that if you're doing nothing wrong, then why are you hiding? - whether in a civil or criminal context - is quite frankly disgusting.
As I write this, some mods have found your post to be either funny or interesting. I find your thinking to be neither. The idea that only the guilty want to hide things is dangerous and contrary to everything our country was founded on. And I repeat, disgusting.
Personally, I never want to hide anything or prevent anyone from seeing anything of mine - until someone wants to see, for any reason - and then I very much want to hide and not disclose; and that is just out of general principle. I was brought up free.
Wow. You're right. But I must compliment you - I'm usually just a Grammar Nazi when I get finicky. You've defined the new class of Anger Nazi! <snappy salute>
(Seriously, cheers and thanks for the advice. I'm not going to take it, though and no disrespect intended. By the time I calm down from this, I won't be able to re-post - the topic will be archived.)
...this falls under DISCOVERY, which is the process whereby each side in a civil suit can force the other to show what evidence they have about the case.
Wow. Great law. The defendant isn't DISCOVERING what evidence the plaintiff has, this is the plaintiff PRETENDING to DISCOVER if the defendant is innocent but really trying to DISCOVER more evidence.
"I have a case against you that you violated a copyright."
"Fuck you, you're wrong."
"Judge, before we go to court and I find out that I have to go fuck myself, I insist on the right to search and DISCOVER if he's telling the truth."
"Well, since it's a DISCOVERY, here's your court order."
I am not a lawyer. But I do have a little common sense. This stinks. This stinks bad.
By the way to everyone who disagrees with my point and thinks that I don't get it, kindly answer this simple question: When did you stop beating your wife?
Fine, first kindly see my comment to my own post - I know it's a civil case.
Thank you, I mean that, for teaching me how to start looking up DISCOVERY.
So, given that you do know the law - how does discovery allow you to violate privacy to the extent that I identify, because it is most certainly that extensive a violation of privacy.
And where do you exercise your computer forensics expertise? In civil discoveries? And if so, just because the law is on your side, how do you rationalize this, morally?
I thought more and more convictions were based on ISP logs instead of hard drive searches these days...
Perhaps more and more civil cases, but not more and more convictions.
Fuck me, I'm not done. Even Judge Judy knows better than this.
Plantiff: "You honor, she stole my CDs when she moved out. A friend saw her carrying out boxes plus who else would have done it?"
Judge Judy: "Ms. X, did you take his CDs?"
Defendant: "No, judge. I did not."
Judge Judy: "I'm sorry, Mr. Z, but you have no proof. Under the law, there's nothing that I can do."
Plaintiff: "Your honor, please - how about a warrant to search her home, business and all of her friends' and family's home - then I'll have proof."
Judge Judy looks at Bert, narrows her eyes, admonishes the idiot to get a life because he's clueless and the law doesn't exist for him to conduct witch hunts and we fade to commercial.
Tell me how my point isn't any simpler than that. How in the fuck did we come to this as a people? Why in the fuck are any of us laying down for this?
My anger may be getting the better of me, but maybe that anger helps fuel my weak brain. How did we condone Gitmo? How did we let the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretapping go on?
How does the fucking camel get into the tent? He sticks his nose in first. Civil warrants to search hard drives have existed for more years than I can recall. That could very well be the camel's fucking nose.
Now - how in fuck do we fix this?
Court orders to search hard drives aren't right - they're not even wrong.
If you get a warrant to search my house, you search my house.
No court believes that it would issue a single warrant to search part of my home, part of my business and parts of my friends' and family's homes.
But a warrant to search my hard drive is exactly that.
Restricting this search to the forensics expert of the MAFIAA's choosing but not allowing irrelevant info to pass on to them is exactly offensive and ridiculous. I'm frustrated my own following hyperbole, but I am so angry, this is the only metaphor that I can find - the beat cop gets to exercise the right to search everyplace you've been with a single warrant, but don't worry, he'll only tell the detectives about the stuff he found that's relevant.
The fucking MAFIAA's cases isn't one of governmental high crimes or misdemeanors, neither is it one involving a criminal case - it's a fucking civil case. How dare any court in the land grant such a mind-numbingly offensive violation of one's constitutional protection of privacy in a fucking civil case?
What we really need in the way of a male contraceptive is a contraceptive that prevents the birth of males.
The whole fucking planet is just getting to be too much of a sausage festival.
Studies have proven that guys get more tail when their percentage in the population is lower. My proposed draconian measure would come too late for many of you here, but the next generation of basement-living geeks would be scoring like never before!
Won't you all just please think of the children?
Am I being hilarious or do these words portend some other agenda? You be the mod.
Not only is the government not mandated to do it, but there are some most excellent laws that prevent the government from competing with private industry. Not only does this lead to gov't subcontractors but actually requires it some places.
Otherwise, I'd guarantee that the DOE and Air Force would have come out with their own PC operating system already.
I agree and go a few steps further:
1. Increased resolution, up from 720p (Apple is good at this now on the Core2Duo mini, so the barriers are gone)
2. Blu-Ray disk support (or however the hell that's abbreviated, sorry (plus, I only *think* Wii doesn't have this and XBox does - I'm no gamer, so I don't know)
3. Netflix support? Check out the Samsung BD-P1600 to see the integration referred to....
4. If #3, then also maybe a similar rental deal with those guys that advertise games like Netflix
5. Certainly iTMS support then, for movies and games, even if they make the typical Apple mistake of bypassing 3 and 4, above
6. Certainly, by this point, the unit has everything required for access to a Apple user's shared movie and music files on his Mac - Apple TV is very cool (even though I opted to use a mini myself)
And FWIW, you can do a lot nowadays with their existing line and a bit a software for remote control:
http://www.jaaduvnc.com/
Now, I'm not big-ass Apple fanboy trying to describe the gee-whiz-they-can-do-it-all meme.
I'm onto the business model, as you are. Apple was part of the Blu-Ray consortium, but has never brought out a product - it's been a while, but the dust has settled on the HD-DVD debate. Blu-Ray is getting cheaper, as are 1080p HDTVs - the latter of which is getting more common in every provider's lineup.
So - if it were my business, and have done the legwork for a technically winning product (for what it was) like Apple TV that failed in the market, but now have a better experience in my computer line supporting 1080p, and have gained experience playing in the HD and TV fields - but I restrict HD quality for my computer users (DRM evil, yadda yadda) - how would I proceed?
Apple TV 1080p w/ Blu-Ray.
But Apple TV didn't set the market on fire and Blu-Ray hasn't yet - how would I hedge my marketing bets?
By adding only a few percent more effort - a remote and some software - and also make it a gaming console.
This isn't a gaming console that will incorporate Apple TV. This may well be the new Apple TV that incorporates a gaming console.
Totally my bad - my description was unfair - instead of thinking abusing the apostrophe, I translated that to its general abuse:
...therefore, it worth saying...
as opposed to, "...it's worth..."
I tried to catch all of those - but I having too much fun. :D
I'd ride mine down to cash in my winning lottery ticket, buy the land, and endow part of the fund needed to launch a world-class museum. You can visit Edison's lab in Greenfield Villiage (Henry Ford Musuem, etc) in Dearborn, Michigan - which, if you ever get the chance, do it - you won't be disappointed, I guarantee.
It would be shame if Tesla doesn't become similarly remembered.
Twice. Look again.
Right. Fucking. On.
If I'd have had mod points, you'd have had one by now.
Besides the fact that this is a complete rumor, more towards the realm of "fabrication" than "rumor", too much evidence exists to deny it from both sides, and it's just plain false.
Are you stoned or something? The parent was objecting to the call for our feelings in TFS and likened it to language from Dr. Phil, instead of just business. And that being all that he said, that was all that I agreed with.
But don't let me stop you from being reminded that Apple exists, thus you must hate it. Just at least come up with an actual reason next time, then someone might take you seriously.
OK, I get it - you're not merely stoned - you're stupid on top of it.
Or, you've missed my post that I levelly support OS X, Windows and Linux - being able to run two of those simultaneously from my many Macs. Or my diatribes about the beauty of the Mac mini as a great HTPC.
Yeah, I'm feeding a troll - first, I'm marked redundant for giving a compliment, and now I have to listen to this crap from you? Karma's cheap. Bite me.
It doesn't really sound like they're copping out. It just sounds more like 150,000 projects is a whole lot more than they expected to get.
I agree, they don't sound like they're copping out.
They do, however, sound completely fucking stoopid.
A legitimate offer for US$10MM put on the internet, by a company with deep pockets, and the requirement for payout to this demographic is: a good idea to make the world better.
How did they not expect well in excess of 150k applications?
Can someone remind me how Twitter makes money.
Gladly. Volume.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4258/saturday-night-live-first-citywide-change-bank-1
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4253/saturday-night-live-first-citywide-change-bank-2
Right. Fucking. On.
If I'd have had mod points, you'd have had one by now.
If Ubuntu were a $0 way of running windows applications it would take over the world.
History disagrees. Perhaps you've forgotten about Lindows?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._Lindows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire
And while Lindows was NOT free at $99, it was a $0 investment over a Windows upgrade, in its day.
http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2001/10/47888
Dude - chill. It's just a freaking design patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
Even TFS said it was for the shell - it's just for the pretty and it's just to have protection against an exactly-appearing duplicate weaken their market/advertising impact.
Whoo hoo! I'm sensing a profit here... The New Picture Bible, featuring Playboy's Girls of Gomorra!
Here's how I see the money trail playing out, in order of increasing cash, if this isn't some incredible hoax:
1. The hijacker gets $10MM
2. Various people not only find various lawsuits to exploit the situation, some are unique enough for big wins, moderated down by the vast proportions of controlling lawsuit funding involving a potential 8MM clients
3. The hijacker gets caught, most of the money is recovered, what isn't is left to the cronies or others
4. Whomever catches him is in for raises and promotions that affect lifetime earnings
5. Among the many hopefuls who start, someone is clever enough to write a truly novel about the incident, be it a report or a fictionalization based on the event.
6. And if all that comes to pass, and the event does gain sufficient national fear-mindshare, then the Hollywood crowd that makes it into a thriller of any sort.
And, if by the law that truth is stranger than fiction, you're the author or member of Hollywood that makes out on this by hearing about the idea here, first, then you'll owe me 10% as resource fee, negotiable by the proportionality of income. I just want to wet my beak, get a new TV and pay a few bills - I'm not greedy.
Hear, hear! Good idea.
And on that note, I submit that anyone reading The Communist Manifesto might want to also read Keslo&Adler's The Capitalist Manifesto. FWIW, although not in Kindle format - http://www.kelsoinstitute.org/pdf/cm-entire.pdf - as I recall believing that converting a pdf to an acceptable format for the Kindle isn't impossible.
These are soft and non-predicting because they are rife with observer bias applied to anecdotal evidence. By example: Marx firmly believed that working alienated a man from his true self, and in his mind, rigorously proved it. Problem was, his ideas of work were assumed upon his readers, with his expectations that the target audience was an industrial-revolution nation, and further, that the abhorrent working conditions were going to remain as static as centuries of serfdom had, and finally, he was out of his depth that neither he nor any other European intellectual had cornered the market on defining the nature of a human's true self - that in itself is a fool's errand.
Controlling one's reaction to exposure to belief systems is an exercise best left to the reader.
This is direly on-topic, because so much of science is just as rife with observer bias applied to anecdotal evidence. By example: Einstein could not believe his initial GR outcome that the universe was non-static, so he jimmied the equations with a cosmological constant and later removed them. Hawking, in a great, "Wrong again, Albert!" moment, started refining the cosmological constant, also driven by his religion's belief system.
Scientists do this thinking that they are being whole persons - or worse, do not even notice often that they are doing this.
Precisely a driving reason for not only peer review, but the nasty tendency for science needing time for ideas to evolve: it takes time for the community to be born into a different socio-politico-religious mindset and to thereby see the bias and limitations of the scientific forebears. Sadly, this effect in and of itself is not universally recognized by scientists themselves.
Learning the objective skills that come so easily to some, and using them to poke holes in "soft sciences" builds a great mental tool for examination of physical sciences. It's never enough to have some sort of talent - one must rigorously exercise it.
Damn. I've actually said something intelligent on /. I ought to go buy lottery tickets or something to take advantage of this roll!
Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague De Camp
Absolutely not what you've asked for - but a possibly invaluable essay that I expect would be quite useful to guide your understanding during your quest.