Yes, that film was so well suppressed that it won an Academy Award. So, basically because the US government got upset and gave it a negative classification that actually increased its popularity... that's your argument against the reality of free speech in the US? So... how much time did the producers spend in jail? Oh, that's right, none.
Don't misunderstand, I don't think I'm all that free. Hell, if I start a business, I'll have assholes like you telling me all sorts of shit I can and can't do, because suddenly now I'm not a person with rights, I'm an eeeeevil corporatist fat-cat.
However, it remains that unless I credibly threaten the life, safety or property of a person or group of persons (or represent harmful lies about them as facts, but I can offer the same as opinions), I can say whatever I want. I can prattle on about all the shit I hate about government or society at large with no fear that I will end up getting two hours in a show-trial and then the better part of a decade in prison like He Depu. I may not be as free as I'd like, but I know I'm more free than that poor man is.
You should attack the substance, not the person nor their background, especially when both are mere assumptions. Further, if the content is something you would support, and you don't because of who the person is rather than what they say, what kind of bigot does that make you?
This would make me think the Chinese can't. One of many. So, do you think it's all well and good to suppress discourse, so long as somewhere behind a locked door a couple people who trust each other thoroughly might take the risk of actually talking about something?
I'm a libertarian, of whom most people think I'm right-leaning. I also only watch over-the-air TV, when I watch TV at all, which hasn't been in almost a year because I moved to a place that doesn't receive any digital signals. (Thanks FCC.) HOWEVER, because I have THE INTERNET that doesn't matter. I can watch whatever shows I care about (which are few) one way or another, and news is omnipresent (it's even here, right now, watching us type! ooooo!).
Ages where a person can possess firearms varies from state to state and can depend on the type of firearm. In Nevada, North Dakota, and South Carolina, there is no age restriction on the possession of long guns. Why, oh why, do people mod baseless assertions like this so high?
(I've also met twelve year olds who were more responsible than some people are at the age of majority.)
I'll believe your bullshit when you start leaving your keys in your unlocked car (as you say you 'could' but probably don't) in the middle of a city of more than half a million people.
The coalescence I spoke of would involve edited news aggregators like Slashdor who would sort through the good and the bad, so the cream would rise to the top. The are, even now, blogs that do research, do edit, and attain consicision. Blogs have in fact caught poor fact-checking in the MSM on some rather notable occasions (like the Dan Rather/Bush/typewriter debacle).
As for bias, like I said in the linked post, we already get bias. It's just a matter of finding and contrasting opposing biases, or finding people who are naturally more objective.
Thanks for answering my question, clearly, you are retarded. 'We can't fix problem x therefore who cares about problem y?!' Also, no professional believes in security through obscurity. As this information increasingly becomes common knowledge among script kiddies and people who already deal in stolen CC#s, per capita incidents will increase. Even regardless of numbers or rarity, it matters when it does happen. Phishing itself basically didn't exist before the current decade, not because it wasn't feasible to set up fake sites in the 90s, just that nobody bothered. As soon as the idea took hold and started making money for scammers, phishing exploded in the early 2000s. If money can be made by this vector, it will explode too. The obscurity may well soon end, just like it did for phishing emails.
I answered this question a while back. Essentially, the old paradigm is obsolete, the new paradigm is so like the old one that it doesn't work, so it's more likely inevitable that the future of news will resemble a coalescence of the blogosphere than any form of pay-to-play.
How did some AC who can't even spell get modded so high for this? What, are we going to wait for them to issue a press release on how they are total failures? Insider information should be trusted unless there is a reason, some kind of evidence or precedent, not to trust it. I see no such evidence, and precedent says 'they are more likely than not to fail'. So, while skepticism is healthy, there is little to be gained in holding out for some more solid information, as that will only come when the failure itself has occurred. In the interim, there is no insight in saying 'well, we don't know absolutely for sure'.
He's not talking about print/web, he's talking about over-the-air TV network news. However a) it's unlikely to happen and b) it's only relevant to dumb hicks in the boonies because everybody else either pays for cable/satellite or gets everything through the internet.
If Californians are so happy, why couldn't they stay there and not bring all their bullshit up to Washington State? Being 3rd generation born and bred to Seattle, let me say this: sunshine blows ass. Too much heat, too much glare, and an increased chance of cancer, why does anybody like that shit? I'm happier when the weather is dark and cool, and rain is nice so long as I don't have to be outside. I moved (more or less against my will) to the greater DC metro area myself recently, and this heat, humidity, and sunshine is killing me, and the people here are so uptight and formal you could crush walnuts between their buttocks.
People in FL are nice though. I'm definitely going to find time to get down there more during the high season when it's not so hot that people spontaneously combust.
We were talking about mood, remember? Not alertness, and that was the only thing objectively tested by that study. The mood portions were done by participant-selected confidence scores, which would skew baselines for adjusted persons (the new normal).
As mentioned in the discussion of that topic, there are also health effects of tea and coffee to be considered.
That is all unimportant to me though. I consume what I want because it is satisfying, not because of benefit or detriment, so long as my consumption habits are diverse and moderate, I have no problems.
I have consumed copious amounts of caffeine during the best, worst, and average times of my life. While it is possible that this consumption changed a baseline understanding, I think it is more likely that there is just no difference.
The capacity for knowing may be finite, but so is all the physical material in the universe. We are in the habit of becoming over-awed and start conflating near-infinite with infinite. (Not to mention we don't need to know every individual atom to understand important patterns. I don't need to see every chair first hand in order to understand what a chair really is.)
Really, all we need to be smart enough to do is to make ourselves smarter. This will happen through genetic manipulation, cybernetic enhancement, and probably eventually through some kind of wholly mechanized consciousness.
Also I cannot accept that contemporary problems are symptomatic of an inherent/intrinsic failing. It's like somebody a few centuries ago saying 'we'll never walk on the moon because we have slavery.' Social problems come and go, technology always improves, knowledge always increases (diminishing returns notwithstanding).
It's funny, you quote me making a general statement, then you set up another strawman specifying the internet. When I say 'options' and not 'the internet' I do mean 'options' generally (inclusive of the internet) and not exclusively the internet.
You might as well argue against books too, as mankind has not always been literate. Either way, one shuts oneself off from vast amounts of a priori knowledge. It doesn't matter that the internet is new and books are old. Ignoring either is a loss, and as I was saying before, if you're ignoring one, it is more likely than not you are ignoring the other, because the motivating principle is identical. Until you can assail that argument, you'll still be spinning your wheels. I have not said the internet is superior and other forms are inferior. I have simply said that the attitude toward one is a likely indicator of the attitude toward others.
I think that's more pessimistic than realistic. A millennium ago we didn't know what a galaxy was either. We are simply incapable of knowing what we're capable (or incapable) of knowing.;-p Even our present capacity isn't necessarily germane to the issue because, if we avoid extinction, it is guaranteed that we will speciate further at some point, and those successor species will have a different capacity than we do now.
One has a better chance of making a living by throwing caution to the wind and trying to make it in Hollywood than through athletics. Very few people are so singularly talented that they can be paid just to move around (unless they're willing to do it naked, that expands the scope a bit).
As for music and art... are you familiar with the internet at all? It's the nexus of music and art. There are so many communities of musicians and artists online it isn't funny, and without exposure to peers and greater talents, how can one truly advance oneself?
Your excuses fall quite flat. You would no doubt vie against books too at such a rate. You can save your pity.
Ah, and going nowhere and doing nothing is well-deployed? I see you even denigrate the use libraries, as I should expect. I rarely ever passed a library that I didn't go in, and spent time in every section at one time or another. Such a specious contrast you draw... so you consider flash games at network TV sites not a waste of time?
Ah, I see, we can excuse one-dimension behavior because of the time involved. So if I only go to the library to read Garfield comics, and I only go for a short time, that excuses the fact that I am wasting my access to the rest of human knowledge, after all, who knows what else I might be doing? Surely, this occasional, short reading of Garfields being my only use of a library indicates nothing about other potential approaches to life.
Absurd. A bald exculpation for no other sake than the escape of condemnation.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. While it is possible to become intelligent without the internet, the principle is common to both the internet and to books (and it is nearly impossible to become intelligent without both). Because the principle is ultimately the pursuit of knowledge and excellence, the format should be immaterial. If somebody pursues knowledge through books, they should, if given the chance, naturally do so through the internet as well with equal if not greater enthusiasm (and vice versa).
Your argument about 'given potentials' is a strawman because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was potential generally. I was not arguing and do not argue that unless one pursues all fields they are somehow wasting themselves. 'The internet' is not some specialized realm only for doctors or programmers or artists or lawyers or what-have-you. It is a completely open realm for basically all facets of human endeavor. If nothing therein is pursued, that is incontrovertibly a waste, unless of course one aspires to nothing.
Indeed. I started programming at 12, but I could have started earlier if somebody had just suggested it to me. I've seen 8-10 year olds build computers (though I didn't until 14, once again as a matter of opportunity). If you talk down to your kids and expect them to fit in some kind of age box for everything, then yes, they won't disappoint, they'll be mediocre because you don't ask anything greater of them. My parents pushed me hard in everything, and ultimately that lead to me pushing myself, which is the epitome of successful parenting. If your kids don't have any initiative, you're doing it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that film was so well suppressed that it won an Academy Award. So, basically because the US government got upset and gave it a negative classification that actually increased its popularity... that's your argument against the reality of free speech in the US? So... how much time did the producers spend in jail? Oh, that's right, none.
Don't misunderstand, I don't think I'm all that free. Hell, if I start a business, I'll have assholes like you telling me all sorts of shit I can and can't do, because suddenly now I'm not a person with rights, I'm an eeeeevil corporatist fat-cat.
However, it remains that unless I credibly threaten the life, safety or property of a person or group of persons (or represent harmful lies about them as facts, but I can offer the same as opinions), I can say whatever I want. I can prattle on about all the shit I hate about government or society at large with no fear that I will end up getting two hours in a show-trial and then the better part of a decade in prison like He Depu. I may not be as free as I'd like, but I know I'm more free than that poor man is.
You should attack the substance, not the person nor their background, especially when both are mere assumptions. Further, if the content is something you would support, and you don't because of who the person is rather than what they say, what kind of bigot does that make you?
This would make me think the Chinese can't. One of many. So, do you think it's all well and good to suppress discourse, so long as somewhere behind a locked door a couple people who trust each other thoroughly might take the risk of actually talking about something?
Fuck you.
I'm a libertarian, of whom most people think I'm right-leaning. I also only watch over-the-air TV, when I watch TV at all, which hasn't been in almost a year because I moved to a place that doesn't receive any digital signals. (Thanks FCC.) HOWEVER, because I have THE INTERNET that doesn't matter. I can watch whatever shows I care about (which are few) one way or another, and news is omnipresent (it's even here, right now, watching us type! ooooo!).
Ages where a person can possess firearms varies from state to state and can depend on the type of firearm. In Nevada, North Dakota, and South Carolina, there is no age restriction on the possession of long guns. Why, oh why, do people mod baseless assertions like this so high?
(I've also met twelve year olds who were more responsible than some people are at the age of majority.)
I'll believe your bullshit when you start leaving your keys in your unlocked car (as you say you 'could' but probably don't) in the middle of a city of more than half a million people.
The coalescence I spoke of would involve edited news aggregators like Slashdor who would sort through the good and the bad, so the cream would rise to the top. The are, even now, blogs that do research, do edit, and attain consicision. Blogs have in fact caught poor fact-checking in the MSM on some rather notable occasions (like the Dan Rather/Bush/typewriter debacle).
As for bias, like I said in the linked post, we already get bias. It's just a matter of finding and contrasting opposing biases, or finding people who are naturally more objective.
Thanks for answering my question, clearly, you are retarded. 'We can't fix problem x therefore who cares about problem y?!' Also, no professional believes in security through obscurity. As this information increasingly becomes common knowledge among script kiddies and people who already deal in stolen CC#s, per capita incidents will increase. Even regardless of numbers or rarity, it matters when it does happen. Phishing itself basically didn't exist before the current decade, not because it wasn't feasible to set up fake sites in the 90s, just that nobody bothered. As soon as the idea took hold and started making money for scammers, phishing exploded in the early 2000s. If money can be made by this vector, it will explode too. The obscurity may well soon end, just like it did for phishing emails.
I answered this question a while back. Essentially, the old paradigm is obsolete, the new paradigm is so like the old one that it doesn't work, so it's more likely inevitable that the future of news will resemble a coalescence of the blogosphere than any form of pay-to-play.
How did some AC who can't even spell get modded so high for this? What, are we going to wait for them to issue a press release on how they are total failures? Insider information should be trusted unless there is a reason, some kind of evidence or precedent, not to trust it. I see no such evidence, and precedent says 'they are more likely than not to fail'. So, while skepticism is healthy, there is little to be gained in holding out for some more solid information, as that will only come when the failure itself has occurred. In the interim, there is no insight in saying 'well, we don't know absolutely for sure'.
He's not talking about print/web, he's talking about over-the-air TV network news. However a) it's unlikely to happen and b) it's only relevant to dumb hicks in the boonies because everybody else either pays for cable/satellite or gets everything through the internet.
In the first place, are you retarded? What part of forwarding to phishing sites to steal your credit card numbers don't you understand?
/. immediately.
In the second place, turn in your card and exit
If Californians are so happy, why couldn't they stay there and not bring all their bullshit up to Washington State? Being 3rd generation born and bred to Seattle, let me say this: sunshine blows ass. Too much heat, too much glare, and an increased chance of cancer, why does anybody like that shit? I'm happier when the weather is dark and cool, and rain is nice so long as I don't have to be outside. I moved (more or less against my will) to the greater DC metro area myself recently, and this heat, humidity, and sunshine is killing me, and the people here are so uptight and formal you could crush walnuts between their buttocks.
People in FL are nice though. I'm definitely going to find time to get down there more during the high season when it's not so hot that people spontaneously combust.
We were talking about mood, remember? Not alertness, and that was the only thing objectively tested by that study. The mood portions were done by participant-selected confidence scores, which would skew baselines for adjusted persons (the new normal).
As mentioned in the discussion of that topic, there are also health effects of tea and coffee to be considered.
That is all unimportant to me though. I consume what I want because it is satisfying, not because of benefit or detriment, so long as my consumption habits are diverse and moderate, I have no problems.
I have consumed copious amounts of caffeine during the best, worst, and average times of my life. While it is possible that this consumption changed a baseline understanding, I think it is more likely that there is just no difference.
They are probably adjusted in size to reflect the sample size of tweets coming from that state (which is why they shift too).
The capacity for knowing may be finite, but so is all the physical material in the universe. We are in the habit of becoming over-awed and start conflating near-infinite with infinite. (Not to mention we don't need to know every individual atom to understand important patterns. I don't need to see every chair first hand in order to understand what a chair really is.)
Really, all we need to be smart enough to do is to make ourselves smarter. This will happen through genetic manipulation, cybernetic enhancement, and probably eventually through some kind of wholly mechanized consciousness.
Also I cannot accept that contemporary problems are symptomatic of an inherent/intrinsic failing. It's like somebody a few centuries ago saying 'we'll never walk on the moon because we have slavery.' Social problems come and go, technology always improves, knowledge always increases (diminishing returns notwithstanding).
It's funny, you quote me making a general statement, then you set up another strawman specifying the internet. When I say 'options' and not 'the internet' I do mean 'options' generally (inclusive of the internet) and not exclusively the internet.
You might as well argue against books too, as mankind has not always been literate. Either way, one shuts oneself off from vast amounts of a priori knowledge. It doesn't matter that the internet is new and books are old. Ignoring either is a loss, and as I was saying before, if you're ignoring one, it is more likely than not you are ignoring the other, because the motivating principle is identical. Until you can assail that argument, you'll still be spinning your wheels. I have not said the internet is superior and other forms are inferior. I have simply said that the attitude toward one is a likely indicator of the attitude toward others.
I think that's more pessimistic than realistic. A millennium ago we didn't know what a galaxy was either. We are simply incapable of knowing what we're capable (or incapable) of knowing. ;-p Even our present capacity isn't necessarily germane to the issue because, if we avoid extinction, it is guaranteed that we will speciate further at some point, and those successor species will have a different capacity than we do now.
One has a better chance of making a living by throwing caution to the wind and trying to make it in Hollywood than through athletics. Very few people are so singularly talented that they can be paid just to move around (unless they're willing to do it naked, that expands the scope a bit).
As for music and art... are you familiar with the internet at all? It's the nexus of music and art. There are so many communities of musicians and artists online it isn't funny, and without exposure to peers and greater talents, how can one truly advance oneself?
Your excuses fall quite flat. You would no doubt vie against books too at such a rate. You can save your pity.
Ah, and going nowhere and doing nothing is well-deployed? I see you even denigrate the use libraries, as I should expect. I rarely ever passed a library that I didn't go in, and spent time in every section at one time or another. Such a specious contrast you draw... so you consider flash games at network TV sites not a waste of time?
Ah, I see, we can excuse one-dimension behavior because of the time involved. So if I only go to the library to read Garfield comics, and I only go for a short time, that excuses the fact that I am wasting my access to the rest of human knowledge, after all, who knows what else I might be doing? Surely, this occasional, short reading of Garfields being my only use of a library indicates nothing about other potential approaches to life.
Absurd. A bald exculpation for no other sake than the escape of condemnation.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. While it is possible to become intelligent without the internet, the principle is common to both the internet and to books (and it is nearly impossible to become intelligent without both). Because the principle is ultimately the pursuit of knowledge and excellence, the format should be immaterial. If somebody pursues knowledge through books, they should, if given the chance, naturally do so through the internet as well with equal if not greater enthusiasm (and vice versa).
Your argument about 'given potentials' is a strawman because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was potential generally. I was not arguing and do not argue that unless one pursues all fields they are somehow wasting themselves. 'The internet' is not some specialized realm only for doctors or programmers or artists or lawyers or what-have-you. It is a completely open realm for basically all facets of human endeavor. If nothing therein is pursued, that is incontrovertibly a waste, unless of course one aspires to nothing.
Indeed. I started programming at 12, but I could have started earlier if somebody had just suggested it to me. I've seen 8-10 year olds build computers (though I didn't until 14, once again as a matter of opportunity). If you talk down to your kids and expect them to fit in some kind of age box for everything, then yes, they won't disappoint, they'll be mediocre because you don't ask anything greater of them. My parents pushed me hard in everything, and ultimately that lead to me pushing myself, which is the epitome of successful parenting. If your kids don't have any initiative, you're doing it wrong.