Okay, you don't agree with my criticism of the way some geeks criticize without thinking. Noted. As another example, besides the one someone else posted, how about you look at the first post in this article?
Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 1
Really? That is the only response to drunk driving? I think not. In my state, for instance, there have been radically harsher penalties for repeat offenders enacted. And there aren't any studies showing the lower limit is safer? I think there are. It sounds like you are cherry picking examples to support a thesis that government always makes bad decisions.
What you haven't even BEGUN to show is how any of this is LEFTY claptrap.
But why even ask that question?
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 1
What do you think the purpose of the original poster was in asking whether this is a book review or a political tract? It seems to imply that the OP finds the criticism offensive or off topic. As the book is about threats, a brief discussion of American risk assessment and management practices is certainly not off topic. Therefore, I believe the OP finds these criticism offensive, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why.
Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Those wacky leftists, pointing out that Americans don't assess or address risk well. What traitors!
Why ask that question? Do you disagree with the assessment of American risk management practices? Since when is criticizing those practices political? I think it's really more sociological than political.
Do you think the government is defining what the Internet is in this case? Or are they simply taking the commonly held definition and applying truth in advertising laws? Why, exactly, was the line about the government defining the Internet even included in the summary, in your opinion?
But then you are siding with BIG GOVERNMENT telling you what the Internet is! Do you want those IDIOTIC BUREAUCRATS and CORRUPT POLITICIANS telling you what the Internet is? They think it's a bunch of tubes! What we need here is a FREE MARKET solution! Whoever has the most money gets to decide what the Internet is. If Apple says the Internet is non-flash, non-java, web only, well, that is their right as a big corporation with lots of money, and government shouldn't get in the way.
Look, it is every corporation's right to mislead people. That's called free speech. It's social Darwinism at work, taking money from the stupid and gullible and giving it to people who deserve it and have the brains to use it. If Apple wants to call the iPhone a magical device that eats pollution and shits gold, well, that is their right./sarcasm
I guess I have to spell it out for you, because you still seem to think I want everyone to bow down to scientific authority, which I don't. What I want is for people to stop spending five seconds thinking up the most obvious objections, not to any actual paper, but to a summary of it, and thinking they have thought of something that the scientists haven't. If you can't see how stupid that is, I pity you. Yes, it DOES indicate an ego problem, the ONLY reason people do it here is to try to look clever.
I'm saying, it doesn't make anyone look clever, it makes them look like a douchebag. No one first posting on Slashdot has EVER thought up an objection the scientists in question did not think of first. Not once. They are engaging in intellectual masturbation, nothing more.
Real and interesting critiques of research presented on Slashdot DO happen, but there is a big difference between them and the oh so common, "Hey, what about this OBVIOUS objection?" karma whoring first or near first posts you see from idiots who know nothing of the field they are critiquing.
Oh get off your high horse. I'm criticizing the smug intellectual superiority of some geeks, who think that because they are smarter than some people in one particular field, they must be smarter than all people in all fields. But if you want to think I'm arguing that we must all take anything said by a person labeled 'scientist' as the word of God, go right ahead and miss the point.
I shall call it, "Are You Smarter Than a Scientist?" Just pick any old science type story, read a poorly written summary of it, then 'prove' the scientists in question are idiots who didn't even consider the Most Obvious Thing. All Slashbots are welcome to compete.
Really. So, all private industry is automatically good, or would you care to qualify that statement? The free market has failure modes, you know. Perhaps you've heard of natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities?
Yeah, I dispute the 50-50 split you observed! I'd say about 80% of Slashdotters are pro nuke. Now, in environmental circles the split may be closer to 50-50, but environmentalists stopped hating all things nuclear back in the 80s. And no one wrote anyone out of the environmental movement, what vast liberal conspiracy do you think has that power?
It may surprise you to learn that not every country in the middle east is exactly the same. Did you not read the part about Dubai being a constitutional monarchy? No on in Dubai can tell anyone where to live. Are you honestly disputing that? If so, you need to find some evidence.
Half of a tech site such as this are dead set against anything with the N word attached, in the general green crowd it approaches 100% enough to egnore the outriders.
What is your purpose in making up statistics like that?
But as for getting people into it were it to actually be built, this is Dubai we are talking about; the government tells people to live in it they will live in it.
Dubai is a constitutional monarchy, and is the most liberal of the United Arab Emirates. Compared to many states in the region, it's citizens have a great deal of freedom. The government can't just go telling anyone where to live.
Please stop making things up to support your deranged political views, and maybe you won't have so many Slashdot freaks.
But didn't you know? Limitation of liability includes not having to feel liable. Why, if corporations had to live up to the moral standards of regular people, nothing would get done. What are you, some kind of Luddite?:/
Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.
Ever see the early South Park DVDs with the special features called "Makin' Bacon with Macon?" Matt and Trey put on a cooking show with their mascot, Macon the pig. They make all kinds of bacony treats, and feed the leftover bacon to the pig.
Interesting side note, 'high' is a synonym for 'stoned,' while 'end' is a synonym for 'asshole.' And 'thinker' just means 'someone who doesn't do shit, but talks a lot.' I definitely think Slashdot is a community of high end thinkers.
And what if the dissatisfied citizens of a particular regime call for international attention and help? I suppose their desires are not legitimate, and do not count. Civil disobedience is ALWAYS about ignoring the 'sovereignty' of a nation, specifically, ignoring the laws that are unjust.
You are supporting the citizens of any regime that themselves support the status quo, and ignoring the desires of the citizens who don't. You also seem to be defining rights in a strange and authoritarian way, as in, 'We have the right not to hear things we don't want to hear.' Shining a light on the side of a building is not infringing anyone's rights.
You may think you support freedom, but your stance is entirely authoritarian.
Well, your critique is certainly interesting, if bleak. But it doesn't amount to anything new, after all, you are mostly paraphrasing the Greek concept of the kyklos, and pointing out that the US doesn't want educated citizenry, which anyone with half a brain can deduce from the evidence.
You seem a bit conflicted, as if you hate the government, but you hate people who would change the government even more. I'm really not sure what to make of the last part, what are you trying to convey? And please don't make any assumptions about where I'm coming from, you really don't know me at all.
You have a thing against protesters, don't you? Sit down, shut up, don't rock the boat.
Now, I'm not talking about what is legal or not. I'm talking about what is right. Of course he got arrested for what he did. He knew the risks going in, and did it anyway. Who knows if he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do, or because he's an attention whore, but that's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ethics of civil disobedience, and whether one can and should only engage in it in one's own country.
We aren't debating whether his actions are legal or not. At least I'm not debating that, it would be stupid. We are debating whether it was right, and possibly whether it was effective at all, or merely a publicity stunt.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, you haven't unlocked the right minigame. It's a short game, but it makes grinding fun.
Thanks, but you really don't need to point out that your attempt at irony failed, or that you area complete idiot. We get it.
Okay, you don't agree with my criticism of the way some geeks criticize without thinking. Noted. As another example, besides the one someone else posted, how about you look at the first post in this article?
Really? That is the only response to drunk driving? I think not. In my state, for instance, there have been radically harsher penalties for repeat offenders enacted. And there aren't any studies showing the lower limit is safer? I think there are. It sounds like you are cherry picking examples to support a thesis that government always makes bad decisions.
What you haven't even BEGUN to show is how any of this is LEFTY claptrap.
What do you think the purpose of the original poster was in asking whether this is a book review or a political tract? It seems to imply that the OP finds the criticism offensive or off topic. As the book is about threats, a brief discussion of American risk assessment and management practices is certainly not off topic. Therefore, I believe the OP finds these criticism offensive, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why.
Those wacky leftists, pointing out that Americans don't assess or address risk well. What traitors!
Why ask that question? Do you disagree with the assessment of American risk management practices? Since when is criticizing those practices political? I think it's really more sociological than political.
Do you think the government is defining what the Internet is in this case? Or are they simply taking the commonly held definition and applying truth in advertising laws? Why, exactly, was the line about the government defining the Internet even included in the summary, in your opinion?
But then you are siding with BIG GOVERNMENT telling you what the Internet is! Do you want those IDIOTIC BUREAUCRATS and CORRUPT POLITICIANS telling you what the Internet is? They think it's a bunch of tubes! What we need here is a FREE MARKET solution! Whoever has the most money gets to decide what the Internet is. If Apple says the Internet is non-flash, non-java, web only, well, that is their right as a big corporation with lots of money, and government shouldn't get in the way.
Look, it is every corporation's right to mislead people. That's called free speech. It's social Darwinism at work, taking money from the stupid and gullible and giving it to people who deserve it and have the brains to use it. If Apple wants to call the iPhone a magical device that eats pollution and shits gold, well, that is their right. /sarcasm
I guess I have to spell it out for you, because you still seem to think I want everyone to bow down to scientific authority, which I don't. What I want is for people to stop spending five seconds thinking up the most obvious objections, not to any actual paper, but to a summary of it, and thinking they have thought of something that the scientists haven't. If you can't see how stupid that is, I pity you. Yes, it DOES indicate an ego problem, the ONLY reason people do it here is to try to look clever.
I'm saying, it doesn't make anyone look clever, it makes them look like a douchebag. No one first posting on Slashdot has EVER thought up an objection the scientists in question did not think of first. Not once. They are engaging in intellectual masturbation, nothing more.
Real and interesting critiques of research presented on Slashdot DO happen, but there is a big difference between them and the oh so common, "Hey, what about this OBVIOUS objection?" karma whoring first or near first posts you see from idiots who know nothing of the field they are critiquing.
MapReduce is the algorithm used to determine the optimum folding pattern used to reduce a standard road map back into its folded state. Duh.
Oh get off your high horse. I'm criticizing the smug intellectual superiority of some geeks, who think that because they are smarter than some people in one particular field, they must be smarter than all people in all fields. But if you want to think I'm arguing that we must all take anything said by a person labeled 'scientist' as the word of God, go right ahead and miss the point.
I shall call it, "Are You Smarter Than a Scientist?" Just pick any old science type story, read a poorly written summary of it, then 'prove' the scientists in question are idiots who didn't even consider the Most Obvious Thing. All Slashbots are welcome to compete.
Must... resist.. penis joke... Damn it! too late.
Really. So, all private industry is automatically good, or would you care to qualify that statement? The free market has failure modes, you know. Perhaps you've heard of natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities?
Yeah, I dispute the 50-50 split you observed! I'd say about 80% of Slashdotters are pro nuke. Now, in environmental circles the split may be closer to 50-50, but environmentalists stopped hating all things nuclear back in the 80s. And no one wrote anyone out of the environmental movement, what vast liberal conspiracy do you think has that power?
It may surprise you to learn that not every country in the middle east is exactly the same. Did you not read the part about Dubai being a constitutional monarchy? No on in Dubai can tell anyone where to live. Are you honestly disputing that? If so, you need to find some evidence.
Half of a tech site such as this are dead set against anything with the N word attached, in the general green crowd it approaches 100% enough to egnore the outriders.
What is your purpose in making up statistics like that?
But as for getting people into it were it to actually be built, this is Dubai we are talking about; the government tells people to live in it they will live in it.
Dubai is a constitutional monarchy, and is the most liberal of the United Arab Emirates. Compared to many states in the region, it's citizens have a great deal of freedom. The government can't just go telling anyone where to live.
Please stop making things up to support your deranged political views, and maybe you won't have so many Slashdot freaks.
But didn't you know? Limitation of liability includes not having to feel liable. Why, if corporations had to live up to the moral standards of regular people, nothing would get done. What are you, some kind of Luddite? :/
Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.
Ever see the early South Park DVDs with the special features called "Makin' Bacon with Macon?" Matt and Trey put on a cooking show with their mascot, Macon the pig. They make all kinds of bacony treats, and feed the leftover bacon to the pig.
Interesting side note, 'high' is a synonym for 'stoned,' while 'end' is a synonym for 'asshole.' And 'thinker' just means 'someone who doesn't do shit, but talks a lot.' I definitely think Slashdot is a community of high end thinkers.
And what if the dissatisfied citizens of a particular regime call for international attention and help? I suppose their desires are not legitimate, and do not count. Civil disobedience is ALWAYS about ignoring the 'sovereignty' of a nation, specifically, ignoring the laws that are unjust.
You are supporting the citizens of any regime that themselves support the status quo, and ignoring the desires of the citizens who don't. You also seem to be defining rights in a strange and authoritarian way, as in, 'We have the right not to hear things we don't want to hear.' Shining a light on the side of a building is not infringing anyone's rights.
You may think you support freedom, but your stance is entirely authoritarian.
Well, your critique is certainly interesting, if bleak. But it doesn't amount to anything new, after all, you are mostly paraphrasing the Greek concept of the kyklos, and pointing out that the US doesn't want educated citizenry, which anyone with half a brain can deduce from the evidence.
You seem a bit conflicted, as if you hate the government, but you hate people who would change the government even more. I'm really not sure what to make of the last part, what are you trying to convey? And please don't make any assumptions about where I'm coming from, you really don't know me at all.
You have a thing against protesters, don't you? Sit down, shut up, don't rock the boat.
Now, I'm not talking about what is legal or not. I'm talking about what is right. Of course he got arrested for what he did. He knew the risks going in, and did it anyway. Who knows if he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do, or because he's an attention whore, but that's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ethics of civil disobedience, and whether one can and should only engage in it in one's own country.
We aren't debating whether his actions are legal or not. At least I'm not debating that, it would be stupid. We are debating whether it was right, and possibly whether it was effective at all, or merely a publicity stunt.