You know, I've read some of Sunsteins's books, and followed his blogging some, and I've found him to be a pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. So I took this with a grain of salt. The article isn't quite what Slashdot or WND claim (e.g., the authors don't seriously consider banning conspiracy theories), but it definitely undermines some of the respect I had for Sunstein.
For those who can't be bothered to read it, but also don't want to hear screeds about the end of civilization, the article's main point is trying to say that conspiracy theories can have a detrimental impact on society. (E.g., the Oklahoma City bombings) The authors think that therefore the government should take a role in correcting misinformation, in 3 ways.
1) Swift denials of a greater number of conspiracy theories. 2) Enlisting independent experts (while attempting to maintain enough distance so as not to infringe on said experts' credibility) 3) Sending people into conspiracy theorist groups in order to introduce what they call "cognitive diversity"---i.e., getting the Mythbusters guys to crash moon-landing-hoax parties.
Obviously #3 is the controversial point. The authors insist that this would not resemble "1960s-style infiltration" in that it wouldn't be a matter of intelligence-gathering, but supposedly merely a mechanism by which agents could provide counterarguments via social networks.
For my own part, I must say, I think that's a terrible idea, and seems incongruent in what is otherwise a fairly reasonable assessment of conspiracy theory. First of all, because one cannot trust the agents in question, once charged with infiltration, to refrain from doing the exact same things that COINTELPRO did (or does, depending on how paranoid you are). And second, of course, is the article's biggest oversight: that a government program to surreptitiously disseminate truthful information impugns both the government and the truth.
But I'll at least test this before I can definitively determine whether or not you actually are full of shit. I don't have anything to do tonight, or tomorrow, so what I'm going to do is drive down to the liquor store and buy myself a bottle of Everclear. I am going to take that Everclear and mix it with water (actually, probably lemonade), and I am going to get piss-off drunk. I'll finish off the night with a bigass glass of milk.
Tomorrow, I will come onto this board, and depending on how I feel, I'm going to tell you whether or not you're full of shit.
I didn't know that. That's bad. Imagine all the four star generals sitting around twiddling their thumbs going, "If only we could bomb Russia, we'd get that last fucking star!"
I wonder if it would be possible, given the safety hazards, to simply make a battery that can be removed and replaced with a charged battery for long trips---the old battery would get sent back to a recharging station and resold. Obviously, I guess, you'd have to take into account wear and tear...
You should still take precautions. Plenty of the tourists to Thailand do, by only sleeping with girls under 14. That means the girls have only had 5-6 years or so to contract the disease.
Or, even better, sometimes you can switch companies. To another company that does the same exact thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Gotta love the "free market."
I'm expecting someone to come out of the woodwork and tell me that, "No, no, eventually someone will decide that they can get more customers by starting up a company that supports net neutrality---and the consumers will flock to them!" Suuuuure. I'm imagining how their conversations with potential investors would go, "Hey, we need to spend millions building a network infrastructure to compete with the Big ISPs, except we're going to be doing it with lower profit margins, which we expect to make up for in volume with our nonexistent user base that will be viciously fought for by bigger, nastier companies, and possibly, maybe make a profit eventually if we aren't hounded into oblivion. It's a winner! You can sign there."
Slashdot Mirror
If only it were that easy.
You know, I've read some of Sunsteins's books, and followed his blogging some, and I've found him to be a pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. So I took this with a grain of salt. The article isn't quite what Slashdot or WND claim (e.g., the authors don't seriously consider banning conspiracy theories), but it definitely undermines some of the respect I had for Sunstein.
For those who can't be bothered to read it, but also don't want to hear screeds about the end of civilization, the article's main point is trying to say that conspiracy theories can have a detrimental impact on society. (E.g., the Oklahoma City bombings) The authors think that therefore the government should take a role in correcting misinformation, in 3 ways.
1) Swift denials of a greater number of conspiracy theories.
2) Enlisting independent experts (while attempting to maintain enough distance so as not to infringe on said experts' credibility)
3) Sending people into conspiracy theorist groups in order to introduce what they call "cognitive diversity"---i.e., getting the Mythbusters guys to crash moon-landing-hoax parties.
Obviously #3 is the controversial point. The authors insist that this would not resemble "1960s-style infiltration" in that it wouldn't be a matter of intelligence-gathering, but supposedly merely a mechanism by which agents could provide counterarguments via social networks.
For my own part, I must say, I think that's a terrible idea, and seems incongruent in what is otherwise a fairly reasonable assessment of conspiracy theory. First of all, because one cannot trust the agents in question, once charged with infiltration, to refrain from doing the exact same things that COINTELPRO did (or does, depending on how paranoid you are). And second, of course, is the article's biggest oversight: that a government program to surreptitiously disseminate truthful information impugns both the government and the truth.
I don't believe this either, so when I've got enough energy to endure another killer hangover, I'll test it empirically, also.
GP is full of shit.
Ow, my freaking head...I think I'm going to go lie down now.
I think you're full of shit.
But I'll at least test this before I can definitively determine whether or not you actually are full of shit. I don't have anything to do tonight, or tomorrow, so what I'm going to do is drive down to the liquor store and buy myself a bottle of Everclear. I am going to take that Everclear and mix it with water (actually, probably lemonade), and I am going to get piss-off drunk. I'll finish off the night with a bigass glass of milk.
Tomorrow, I will come onto this board, and depending on how I feel, I'm going to tell you whether or not you're full of shit.
I didn't know that. That's bad. Imagine all the four star generals sitting around twiddling their thumbs going, "If only we could bomb Russia, we'd get that last fucking star!"
With the new offramp from I-45 to Nassau Bay, I didn't realize it was still known for anything. ;-)
I'll buy them off of you for a good price.
Also from Texas, and you beat me to it.
Motherfucker.
I'd hate to be the guy who cleans the holodeck.
He's not giving permission. He's just saying he won't sue. Whether that makes any difference is anyone's guess.
You eat and drink in WoW. When you log out, you go to a city or an inn to get "rested."
More than that, and it's just tedium.
You can't overdose on weed. You can overdose on alcohol.
So yeah, you're wrong.
I've always wanted to see Bertrand Russell in tights.
Or require a licensed operator at charging stations. Or something else.
The point being, it's probably feasible if the consumer drops their assumptions about the way fueling their car is supposed to go.
I wonder if it would be possible, given the safety hazards, to simply make a battery that can be removed and replaced with a charged battery for long trips---the old battery would get sent back to a recharging station and resold. Obviously, I guess, you'd have to take into account wear and tear...
Perhaps they *did* use it correctly, and were referring to slave-labor in technology research. "Whose scientist is that? He's so adorable!"
As an aside, the site you link is kind of precious when it comes to mentioning North American spellings.
The Ostrich Principle.
Agreed, there's no practical way to moderate comments. Everyone, mod parent up!
You should still take precautions. Plenty of the tourists to Thailand do, by only sleeping with girls under 14. That means the girls have only had 5-6 years or so to contract the disease.
If you RTFA, you might not have to post such silly nonsense.
Or, even better, sometimes you can switch companies. To another company that does the same exact thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Gotta love the "free market."
I'm expecting someone to come out of the woodwork and tell me that, "No, no, eventually someone will decide that they can get more customers by starting up a company that supports net neutrality---and the consumers will flock to them!" Suuuuure. I'm imagining how their conversations with potential investors would go, "Hey, we need to spend millions building a network infrastructure to compete with the Big ISPs, except we're going to be doing it with lower profit margins, which we expect to make up for in volume with our nonexistent user base that will be viciously fought for by bigger, nastier companies, and possibly, maybe make a profit eventually if we aren't hounded into oblivion. It's a winner! You can sign there."
Likewise, if twenty-five of your thirty Facebook friends are gay and of the opposite gender as you, they conclude you're probably single.
Funny, if they were planning on doing that, I imagine they should have done it when they invented the damn thing.
He probably decided to farm garlic to ward off the vampires. Can't say I blame him.