I can't grasp the meaning of your left-wing and right-wing examples. Are you saying that both left-wing and right-wing have good ideas, but also have crazy people? Or are you saying that left-wing and right-wing people are crazy, period?
I think that simplifying things is part of human nature. Maybe it's laziness, maybe it's necessary so that we can begin to understand things. Like models. The more simplified ideas we "know", the more there is to know. It's all there, only waiting for us to dig deeper. But we have to start somewhere... and, I think, have a little openness to the possibility that the more complex picture may end up invalidating the simpler model.
My impression is actually that most people don't even get to the simplified knowledge. They just don't know anything about most common History subjects. Most subjects, for that matter, other than the latest TV star or tweet.
If Joe can answer "slavery" to the Civil War question, I'll be somewhat happy with that. But I wonder how many would answer:
Sorry, but I find that a little selfish. Looking for possible avoidable causes or unlikely cures may have little benefit for his child, but could help others.
What pisses me off is not the manhours/years and research dollars that got diverted per se, but the first Mr. who faked his research in the first place and caused all this. If he really faked everything, he should be entitled to repay all that was lost due to his criminal work.
You sound well-intentioned. But have you considered that most of the hatred is passed by word of mouth, father to son, demagogue to people?
How would you change those people's minds? How would you stop child labor and today's slavery?
The problems won't disappear just because their equivalents from the past no longer exist in our text books. In fact, the few people that can actually rationalize and extrapolate History events to what happens today would no longer have any basis to do so.
That's not even the problem. Check the percentage of people that actually know anything of what we're supposed to learn about History in school. Go ask questions like how did the I and II World War started, who was Benjamin Franklin, Stalin, Cristopher Columbus...
It's not that "knowing" didn't help. Most people didn't even got that far.
Here's what comes out from erasing or modifying the "bad" part of History:
- Instead of just a small percentage of people knowing it (voluntarily or not), nobody would. - Who decides what to erase? Hitler, Stalin or the Pope? Or everybody? - How will we know how one thing led to another?
This kind of History elrous0 proposes sounds like a new kind of Bible to me.
Unfortunately, what you seem to be overlooking is that if a considerable number of PCs have suspicious History entries, it cannot be used as proof regardless of who's the suspect.
Not worth the trouble for me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time explaining what I need to the travel agent, then correcting his mistakes. I have to keep polling for information.
When I find it cheaper online, I'm doubling my work. Plus I have to wait for the travel agent to come back with a counter-proposal and risk losing the online deal. It happened just too often.
Sometimes he leaves the final reservation for the last minute and I end up without the hotel I wanted to book.
I don't see why they need to "defend their beliefs." They have them. Others disagree.
For the same reason some people defended slaves against slavers, oppressed women, and so on. It matters not that my examples are all about humans and theirs are about animals. In their belief, animals should have certain rights they have not today, much like slaves were once considered just animals or soulless people, and women just property. By the way, in some places, this still seems to be true.
Once ethical people see this kind of problem, they can't just sit down in their opinions and let others carry on. To them, it's not a matter of personal option because there's a "helpless victim" involved.
Trying to convince you may be annoying to you, but while you're just annoyed, an uncountable number of animals are suffering and dying for questionable reasons. To me, any group defending this type of ideology (fight violence against the helpless) has a valid right to bother people to try to change things.
If it works or not, that's another subject. Which, by the way, was the subject we were talking before you skipped it by questioning its merit.
Maybe now the merit is clarified so it won't keep you from proposing an alternative strategy for them to reach their goal while bothering you less?
So why bother with it, when you could be doing real good (by their standard of goodness) with a focus on action (say, addressing the problems in their shelters) rather than activism?
I can only guess that they don't have the same standard of goodness you think they have, so that such "problems" would not be as ethically wrong as letting people carry on with their comfortable habits.
Finally, maybe they are all nut cases. Maybe they're extremists. Maybe they're just desperate to see some change. In any case, as others pointed out, it would be nice of people, although obviously nobody is obliged by law, to analyze the message behind the messenger's tactics. Maybe they'll find it worth some research that will convince them of some unjustified cruelty, or maybe animals will always be just too strange to them to care.
Some people are trying, and I'm glad they exist, because when I compare the alternatives between annoyance (right belief: at least they tried to change; or wrong belief: so what? We do can live without at least some of the cruelty) with doing nothing (right or wrong belief, nothing changed, nobody tried) I find the annoyance the least of evils.
Let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say you're an animal rights believer. How would you defend your beliefs against a society that couldn't care less?
If your strategy sounds better than PETA's, maybe they could profit from your wisdom.
If, in the other hand, you're incapable of defending their ideals, then I'm afraid they, as much as you, don't have a lot of options in hand other than not doing it, period.
Since they're in a moral dilemma, they'll probably choose the way less than optimal tactic of combativeness: from lack of better option.
Interestingly, we also have lived without computers for millions of years. I'd like to see you try. It's certainly possible, but oh what a trouble you'd go through...
Note that some people do. First example that comes to mind: Amish. But since they haven't "evolved" into a technological society, in par to our processed meat eating society, I don't think they really apply.
It's a wonderful World you're painting, but unfortunately we have not evolved into a no lies society.
Even though considering to state a lie would bring serious ethical concerns to me, I understand that there are some crazy people out there that must be fought.
The strategy to get them cannot be completely public, otherwise they'll be prepared. For example:
- Drug dealers, - Mafia, - North Korea, -...
This situation requires diplomacy and a secret service, to name a few. A secret service, much like undercover agents, requires a certain degree of secrecy (see "secret" in secret service) and lies.
It's not like WikiLeaks came to public with a big secret regarding how the US government exploits everybody. Instead, they exposed strategic exchanges between World diplomats. Bravo.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't grasp the meaning of your left-wing and right-wing examples. Are you saying that both left-wing and right-wing have good ideas, but also have crazy people? Or are you saying that left-wing and right-wing people are crazy, period?
I think that simplifying things is part of human nature. Maybe it's laziness, maybe it's necessary so that we can begin to understand things. Like models. The more simplified ideas we "know", the more there is to know. It's all there, only waiting for us to dig deeper. But we have to start somewhere... and, I think, have a little openness to the possibility that the more complex picture may end up invalidating the simpler model.
My impression is actually that most people don't even get to the simplified knowledge. They just don't know anything about most common History subjects. Most subjects, for that matter, other than the latest TV star or tweet.
If Joe can answer "slavery" to the Civil War question, I'll be somewhat happy with that. But I wonder how many would answer:
- Uhh... Obama bin Ladun(sic)?
Sorry, but I find that a little selfish. Looking for possible avoidable causes or unlikely cures may have little benefit for his child, but could help others.
What pisses me off is not the manhours/years and research dollars that got diverted per se, but the first Mr. who faked his research in the first place and caused all this. If he really faked everything, he should be entitled to repay all that was lost due to his criminal work.
You are both right, because "conflict" doesn't exist anymore. Right elrous0?.
You sound well-intentioned. But have you considered that most of the hatred is passed by word of mouth, father to son, demagogue to people?
How would you change those people's minds? How would you stop child labor and today's slavery?
The problems won't disappear just because their equivalents from the past no longer exist in our text books. In fact, the few people that can actually rationalize and extrapolate History events to what happens today would no longer have any basis to do so.
That's not even the problem. Check the percentage of people that actually know anything of what we're supposed to learn about History in school. Go ask questions like how did the I and II World War started, who was Benjamin Franklin, Stalin, Cristopher Columbus...
It's not that "knowing" didn't help. Most people didn't even got that far.
Here's what comes out from erasing or modifying the "bad" part of History:
- Instead of just a small percentage of people knowing it (voluntarily or not), nobody would.
- Who decides what to erase? Hitler, Stalin or the Pope? Or everybody?
- How will we know how one thing led to another?
This kind of History elrous0 proposes sounds like a new kind of Bible to me.
Unfortunately, what you seem to be overlooking is that if a considerable number of PCs have suspicious History entries, it cannot be used as proof regardless of who's the suspect.
I spent about 30 minutes trying to find anything in both Nasa.gov or www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org regarding the list. No luck.
The only real thing I found was the 2012 debunk site, but no list whatsoever.
Makes one wonder if a certain reporter made this up and nobody bothered to check.
I'm very interested in seeing you try. Don't forget to record it on video and post on Youtube.
Not worth the trouble for me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time explaining what I need to the travel agent, then correcting his mistakes. I have to keep polling for information.
When I find it cheaper online, I'm doubling my work. Plus I have to wait for the travel agent to come back with a counter-proposal and risk losing the online deal. It happened just too often.
Sometimes he leaves the final reservation for the last minute and I end up without the hotel I wanted to book.
Glad it works for you, though.
I think he meant "Mod". I, for one, don't know how you want people to modify the parent. That's something we do to devices, not to people...
Two lesson's learned, right there! You can't expect to treat individual's like peasant's and have no reaction. Eventually the reader's get vengeful.
Many thank's, Gunkerty Jeb!
Admirable, but a browser is still this far behind from today's game complexity that it would be like comparing Emacs to Halo.
Ok, ok, car analogy... hmmm a course bicycle to a Ferrari?
Jerry, is that you?
Transparent? How about Open? I had the impression of being the only one finding it amusing that OpenLeaks is actually closed to the public.
So Voyager is now sending scientific papers to 2010's Earth? Cool!
Or just "oh no, not another Tai's Method".
I don't see why they need to "defend their beliefs." They have them. Others disagree.
For the same reason some people defended slaves against slavers, oppressed women, and so on. It matters not that my examples are all about humans and theirs are about animals. In their belief, animals should have certain rights they have not today, much like slaves were once considered just animals or soulless people, and women just property. By the way, in some places, this still seems to be true.
Once ethical people see this kind of problem, they can't just sit down in their opinions and let others carry on. To them, it's not a matter of personal option because there's a "helpless victim" involved.
Trying to convince you may be annoying to you, but while you're just annoyed, an uncountable number of animals are suffering and dying for questionable reasons. To me, any group defending this type of ideology (fight violence against the helpless) has a valid right to bother people to try to change things.
If it works or not, that's another subject. Which, by the way, was the subject we were talking before you skipped it by questioning its merit.
Maybe now the merit is clarified so it won't keep you from proposing an alternative strategy for them to reach their goal while bothering you less?
So why bother with it, when you could be doing real good (by their standard of goodness) with a focus on action (say, addressing the problems in their shelters) rather than activism?
I can only guess that they don't have the same standard of goodness you think they have, so that such "problems" would not be as ethically wrong as letting people carry on with their comfortable habits.
Finally, maybe they are all nut cases. Maybe they're extremists. Maybe they're just desperate to see some change. In any case, as others pointed out, it would be nice of people, although obviously nobody is obliged by law, to analyze the message behind the messenger's tactics. Maybe they'll find it worth some research that will convince them of some unjustified cruelty, or maybe animals will always be just too strange to them to care.
Some people are trying, and I'm glad they exist, because when I compare the alternatives between annoyance (right belief: at least they tried to change; or wrong belief: so what? We do can live without at least some of the cruelty) with doing nothing (right or wrong belief, nothing changed, nobody tried) I find the annoyance the least of evils.
Let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say you're an animal rights believer. How would you defend your beliefs against a society that couldn't care less?
If your strategy sounds better than PETA's, maybe they could profit from your wisdom.
If, in the other hand, you're incapable of defending their ideals, then I'm afraid they, as much as you, don't have a lot of options in hand other than not doing it, period.
Since they're in a moral dilemma, they'll probably choose the way less than optimal tactic of combativeness: from lack of better option.
I'm all for that. At least give our bodies to the wolves so they can have a nice meal.
Interestingly, we also have lived without computers for millions of years. I'd like to see you try. It's certainly possible, but oh what a trouble you'd go through...
Note that some people do. First example that comes to mind: Amish. But since they haven't "evolved" into a technological society, in par to our processed meat eating society, I don't think they really apply.
It's a wonderful World you're painting, but unfortunately we have not evolved into a no lies society.
Even though considering to state a lie would bring serious ethical concerns to me, I understand that there are some crazy people out there that must be fought.
The strategy to get them cannot be completely public, otherwise they'll be prepared. For example:
- Drug dealers, ...
- Mafia,
- North Korea,
-
This situation requires diplomacy and a secret service, to name a few. A secret service, much like undercover agents, requires a certain degree of secrecy (see "secret" in secret service) and lies.
It's not like WikiLeaks came to public with a big secret regarding how the US government exploits everybody. Instead, they exposed strategic exchanges between World diplomats. Bravo.
That's pure capitalism for you.
Money first, people... What people? You mean assets and consumers.
Nah, they just don't care :) As long as they can milk a singer, it doesn't really matter if he's good or not.
Talentless hacks who can't sing without heavy autotuning encourage me to give the RIAA the finger and steal music.
You may be confused about which type of singer really needs the RIAA and which doesn't.
Now won't PCMag be happy about all this publicity...