hmmmmm, there seem to be a lot of anons posting similar half-measures. I think a certain demographic are getting the chills at the thought of a world where they don't have their facebook crack as a constant stream directly into their neurosis.
because I generate all its content myself. My own photography, videos, thoughts and data feeds.
Prove it. Prove that it isn't owned by someone else. Then take that evidence proving a negative to a court, fight the district attorney, convince a judge that your personal site was wrongfully blocked. And then your site will be unblocked.
Until they do it again.
(Also, the parent said "favorite sites", not "personal site". With SOPA, the DA, at the behest of content owners, could block any site that they deem is infringing their copyrights or is aiding infringement. Like if Slashdot linked to a site that explained how to bypass SOPA blocks.)
It is their goal to dominate the United States economically, politically, and militarily.
Well, yes, but also the rest of the world. They want to be dominate. The same way that the USA does. And Russia. And, well, all nations. It's kind of their natural goal. (Except for Switzerland, but they're kinda freaks). The same way that corporations want to dominate their market (and all markets, really). They want to, you know, "win".
It only ever comes down to war when shit gets really bad. We're not anywhere near war. We're not at war with EastAsia or EurAsia. Get over it.
I dunno man, I think you're talking about "IT" work as it pertains to servers, switches, Microsoft certs, running cables, managing backups. You know, sysadmin stuff. Which tech schools can excel at. But the parent is talking about MIT's AI-classes, GIT-hub resume's, open-source projects, statistics, and machine-learning. Developer and software engineering stuff. They're different fields. And the theory side is vital for developers working on serious shit like machine learning. Less so for sysadmins. It's also less vital for developers banging out yet another SQL report. Tech schools would suit a lot of business developers just fine.
As far as apprenticeships go, we have those. They're called interns.
But you must trust CIA when you trust their documents that they release, or how are you thinking here?
Trust is not a discreet trust/distrust thing. I trust the salesman to try and swindle me. I trust the zealot to believe in his god. I trust Foxnews to slant the article to republicans. I trust all these people to come in at their various angles and so when the salesman tells me about a free alternative, or the zealot talks about an internal inconstancy with this religious texts, or foxnews praises a democrat, I listen, but always suspect them to be taking the long-path to their goal.
All I am saying is that please take a look at the other side of the too
I will. Case in point, I trust the CIA to try to look good to their boss. They could have simply been claiming responsibility to try to look good at the time. BUT, one CIA mid-boss doesn't know what other CIA mid-bosses are doing, so if one claims ignorance of an operation, or claims Paul down the office is lying get to get credit, it doesn't mean we didn't have spooks on the ground. The history of cloak and dagger operations is difficult, deal with it.
but according to many people evolution is not the correct side
Yeah, the nutballs. And I think right there you've lost me. You don't know about Japan, I don't know (too much) about Iran, but I KNOW MY SHIT when it comes to evolution. It's one of those topics I stayed on top of. To even hint that "many people" disbelieve, deny, or simply distrust the concept of evolution as some sort of argument against the merit of Wikipedia, well, that places you firmly in the crazy camp. Sorry dude, but now I'm even surer that the CIA and SIS helped overthrow Mosaddegh.
I'll still look into it though. You always have to validate what you believe.
The religious right hates science. As long as science is primarily secular, the religious right will probably be against it.
The conservative right hates science mostly due to demographics. Rural locations trend towards conservative, urban locations trend towards progressive. Is it too big of a leap to say that scientific advancement is progressive? Universities especially trend away from conservatism.
The right doesn't fundamentally hate science. But as long as they tie themselves to religion and conservatism, a subset of them are going to hate science. To outsiders looking to smear their opponents, they are going to lump you with the anti-science groups, despite many members being pro-science, scientists, and perfectly forward thinking individuals, and label you as hating science.
Then again, since you ARE standing arm-in-arm with the religious right and empower them as much as they empower you, you ARE enabling their sentiment.
You're assuming I trust the CIA. You're assuming I trust US abassadors. You're assuming a very discreet, all or nothing version of "trust".
Don't do that, it makes you look like an ass.
You do have a good point about claiming false involvement to look good at the time. I trusted these documents because it made them look horrendously bad later on. I'd have to go look at when those documents were written, when they got declassified, how Iran was doing at those times, and if there's anything to validate them.
But don't hitch your hopes to some trivial scraps of paper and agreements. What is written sometimes doesn't always mean a damn thing on the ground. Case in point, Japan had it hardcoded into their constitution that they wouldn't have a military. Of any form. Even for defense. Some 50 years later, their "defense force" which has been around for decades finally gets officially recognized as a military force. If you whined to me claiming that Japan didn't have a military and futilely pointed to their constitution as proof, I'd simply laugh at you. As for Iran and the Shah? I'll have to double check.
Lastly,
Since this is a controversial issue with two sides,
Like evolution? Sorry, but usually Wikipedia is a great place for controversial topics. Usually the correct side "wins".
Put another way, if you can't trust a bunch of old guys in suits not to become corrupt, why can you trust a bunch of stoned basement dwellers to avoid corruption?
In addition to the counter-arguments above, I'd like to add:
Because there are a lot more wikipedia contributors then old guys in suits. The power is more distributed. It's harder to abuse power when you have to share it with everyone.
Oh, then by all means, go edit history. The edit button is right at the top. Good luck.
But the reason that we can trust the CIA in this matter is because it's declassified internal document logging the blackops that the CIA performed. This is their dirty laundry that they wouldn't want anyone to see.
Dear Stack overflow, every time I try to play this disc it keeps popping up an error. I've narrowed it down to this one component that doesn't seem to do anything other then give me headaches. Help me bypass it.
Not for this one I'm not. There are indeed labs that do brutal things to animals, and we have to draw the line on ethical concerns somewhere. And that line is fairly proportional to how similar the test subject is to us. So we really really care about what happens to us. We have social obligations to other humans. We care about what happens to monkeys. Small furry mammals shouldn't suffer too much. Insects and fish... well... meh. And we're perfectly fine with brutally twisting and subverting the very nature of bacteria and viruses.
But for these rats, and the monkeys the parent was talking about? It really is that minimal. Get over it.
And progress is progress. Life is better, longer, more harmonically aligned with the forces that be, whatever floats your boat. It's better than the brutish nasty and short lives these animals would have out in the wild. It's exactly that sort of thing we're progressing away from.
The thing is, you don't seem to consider them part of our "society." Meaning, you don't see them benefiting from the experiments.
Uh..... Proving that animals show empathy probably goes a long way for showing how similar they are to us. Which would mean we feel worse about doing bad things to them. I'd say rats on the whole have benefited greatly from this experiment.
I'm not opposed to animal testing. I'm not opposed to a modicum of suffering to benefit the greater good. I'm opposed to "species-centric sociopathy," which is really a short step away from general sociopathy.
Good. I really don't think you'll find any of the latter in this study, the study with the monkeys, or in me. So don't get your panties in a twist.
But please, just remember that animals do not have human rights. No, we're not that different from them, but we ARE different.
But let me go one further. You obviously feel aghast at the thought of creating a system which inflicts pain in a monkey. Now, this isn't dismemberment, brain damage, or anything that will cause long term damage. (Does it even cause short term damage?). These are researchers trying to learn about psychology, sociology, biology, and how to make things better. You know, "Progress". That mystical magical thing that leads to things which let you live a little longer. Speaking of living longer, what options do these monkeys have really? They could be out in the wilds of Africa, where they'd lead a life that was nasty, brutish, and short. Of course it's a little late for that now, since it's a lifestyle you kinda have to be born into. They could be placed in a zoo, where they get stared at, and slowly go crazy. They could be a pet, for all the crazy people who have exotic pet licenses. Oh, but that requires some training, which involves quite a bit of smacking, so that won't do. Or they could contribute to society in a more meaningful way by being part of a study.
So while I understand that your bleeding heart goes out to these poor monkeys, it's not that bad, and stop getting in the way of science.
Bad example. Police and Firemen are employed by the government. Journalists are not. Anyone can go establish a newspaper and hire anyone to be a reporter. Being employed by the government changes a few things legal-wise.
But hey, let's go through your examples. Remember, it's not about taking privileges away from special people, it's about granting those privileges to everyone.
No special privileges granted to police officers to enter premises in case of emergencies,
If I see my neighbor getting stabbed I'm damn well going to enter his house to help him. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a cop, I've never had to go stop a stabbing. I have no clue what laws on what books give me this right, but I know I have it.
carry weapons openly,
Uh, we already have this. Anyone who can own a firearm anyway. Remember that guy with the AR over his shoulder at Obama's speech?
or detain people against their will despite not witnessing a crime?
Why do they have this privilege again? If they're a suspect, arrest them. If I don't want to talk to the cops, I don't have to. I know I have that right.
No special privileges granted to fire-fighters to restrict people from entering their own homes
If I'm standing outside a home engulfed in flames I want the right to keep the crazed mother from committing suicide too.
or to enter someone's home without permission?
Likewise, if there's a house fire, I want to have the right to dash in and save people. Yes yes, there is a fine line between being dashing and being suicidal. Judgment call.
No special privileges granted to ambulance drivers to go through red lights?
You got me there. Of course, it's really the ambulance and the lights that give them the right. And that's regulated. But I get what you're saying. It's not feasible, but ideally, if I had a neighbor with a critical stab-wound in my car and I was racing to the hospital, and just happened to have lights and sirens on my car, I'd like to be able to tell everyone else on the road to GTFO. But yeah, ambulances are simply above the rest of us for now.
the privilege to withhold information from a court,
I know that it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside to sneer at people who believe something you don't...
Whoa there. Sure, he's referring to gods as "invisible friends", and yes that's kinda sneerish.
But you're skipping right over the part where he's specifically sneering at THE ONES WHO ARE KILLING EACH OTHER over rather trivial differences. So, while you have a point about respecting each other, getting in a huff about such a minor slight is kind of playing right into his argument.
The fact that you're getting insulted over an insult to murderers is rather sad.
... ah! Got it. I failed to not miss the double negative. Sorry about that.
So you're saying that when he comes for his visit, if you tell him to pull out entirely from, say, microsoft, that he'll do it and the mutual fund will no longer have any investments in Microsoft?
Whoa.
The manager at my fund absolutely answers to me and the other people I work with
I just kind of assumed you somehow exerted control through, you know, telling him to do things.
Because you're arguing that you have some portion of control over the companies you own stock in. Like the ability to buy and sell stocks in the collective pool. Which is what fund managers do.
wait...
I've never not been able to contact a fund administrator. Ever.
Hey, got a reputable source for the "especially upper management, requires sociopath tendencies" comment? I was called out on it the other day and I couldn't produce anything. Sure, it sounds good and it makes sense, but do you know any actual research to back that up?
Because I've put solid effort into building a quality product with measurable results?
Because I'm an engineer that knows more about the product/industry/state of the art than the slimy salesman?
Because I'm not there to "represent" your company, I'm there to make the bloody thing work.
Slashdot Mirror
hmmmmm, there seem to be a lot of anons posting similar half-measures. I think a certain demographic are getting the chills at the thought of a world where they don't have their facebook crack as a constant stream directly into their neurosis.
because I generate all its content myself. My own photography, videos, thoughts and data feeds.
Prove it. Prove that it isn't owned by someone else. Then take that evidence proving a negative to a court, fight the district attorney, convince a judge that your personal site was wrongfully blocked. And then your site will be unblocked.
Until they do it again.
(Also, the parent said "favorite sites", not "personal site". With SOPA, the DA, at the behest of content owners, could block any site that they deem is infringing their copyrights or is aiding infringement. Like if Slashdot linked to a site that explained how to bypass SOPA blocks.)
What's the difference between Facebook, Google, et. al. taking themselves offline compared to the government doing it for them?
It's temporary with a proposed solution to keep similar blocks from being permanent in the future.
That's the difference.
It is their goal to dominate the United States economically, politically, and militarily.
Well, yes, but also the rest of the world. They want to be dominate. The same way that the USA does. And Russia. And, well, all nations. It's kind of their natural goal. (Except for Switzerland, but they're kinda freaks). The same way that corporations want to dominate their market (and all markets, really). They want to, you know, "win".
It only ever comes down to war when shit gets really bad. We're not anywhere near war. We're not at war with EastAsia or EurAsia. Get over it.
But yeah, dick move on IBM's part.
I dunno man, I think you're talking about "IT" work as it pertains to servers, switches, Microsoft certs, running cables, managing backups. You know, sysadmin stuff. Which tech schools can excel at. But the parent is talking about MIT's AI-classes, GIT-hub resume's, open-source projects, statistics, and machine-learning. Developer and software engineering stuff. They're different fields. And the theory side is vital for developers working on serious shit like machine learning. Less so for sysadmins. It's also less vital for developers banging out yet another SQL report. Tech schools would suit a lot of business developers just fine.
As far as apprenticeships go, we have those. They're called interns.
But you must trust CIA when you trust their documents that they release, or how are you thinking here?
Trust is not a discreet trust/distrust thing. I trust the salesman to try and swindle me. I trust the zealot to believe in his god. I trust Foxnews to slant the article to republicans. I trust all these people to come in at their various angles and so when the salesman tells me about a free alternative, or the zealot talks about an internal inconstancy with this religious texts, or foxnews praises a democrat, I listen, but always suspect them to be taking the long-path to their goal.
All I am saying is that please take a look at the other side of the too
I will. Case in point, I trust the CIA to try to look good to their boss. They could have simply been claiming responsibility to try to look good at the time. BUT, one CIA mid-boss doesn't know what other CIA mid-bosses are doing, so if one claims ignorance of an operation, or claims Paul down the office is lying get to get credit, it doesn't mean we didn't have spooks on the ground. The history of cloak and dagger operations is difficult, deal with it.
but according to many people evolution is not the correct side
Yeah, the nutballs. And I think right there you've lost me. You don't know about Japan, I don't know (too much) about Iran, but I KNOW MY SHIT when it comes to evolution. It's one of those topics I stayed on top of. To even hint that "many people" disbelieve, deny, or simply distrust the concept of evolution as some sort of argument against the merit of Wikipedia, well, that places you firmly in the crazy camp. Sorry dude, but now I'm even surer that the CIA and SIS helped overthrow Mosaddegh.
I'll still look into it though. You always have to validate what you believe.
The religious right hates science. As long as science is primarily secular, the religious right will probably be against it.
The conservative right hates science mostly due to demographics. Rural locations trend towards conservative, urban locations trend towards progressive. Is it too big of a leap to say that scientific advancement is progressive? Universities especially trend away from conservatism.
The right doesn't fundamentally hate science. But as long as they tie themselves to religion and conservatism, a subset of them are going to hate science. To outsiders looking to smear their opponents, they are going to lump you with the anti-science groups, despite many members being pro-science, scientists, and perfectly forward thinking individuals, and label you as hating science.
Then again, since you ARE standing arm-in-arm with the religious right and empower them as much as they empower you, you ARE enabling their sentiment.
Don't be evil
It is not, was not, and will never be
Do no evil
Why are so many people getting this wrong?
Don't do that, it makes you look like an ass.
You do have a good point about claiming false involvement to look good at the time. I trusted these documents because it made them look horrendously bad later on. I'd have to go look at when those documents were written, when they got declassified, how Iran was doing at those times, and if there's anything to validate them.
But don't hitch your hopes to some trivial scraps of paper and agreements. What is written sometimes doesn't always mean a damn thing on the ground. Case in point, Japan had it hardcoded into their constitution that they wouldn't have a military. Of any form. Even for defense. Some 50 years later, their "defense force" which has been around for decades finally gets officially recognized as a military force. If you whined to me claiming that Japan didn't have a military and futilely pointed to their constitution as proof, I'd simply laugh at you. As for Iran and the Shah? I'll have to double check.
Lastly,
Since this is a controversial issue with two sides,
Like evolution? Sorry, but usually Wikipedia is a great place for controversial topics. Usually the correct side "wins".
Put another way, if you can't trust a bunch of old guys in suits not to become corrupt, why can you trust a bunch of stoned basement dwellers to avoid corruption?
In addition to the counter-arguments above, I'd like to add:
Because there are a lot more wikipedia contributors then old guys in suits. The power is more distributed. It's harder to abuse power when you have to share it with everyone.
Oh, then by all means, go edit history. The edit button is right at the top. Good luck.
But the reason that we can trust the CIA in this matter is because it's declassified internal document logging the blackops that the CIA performed. This is their dirty laundry that they wouldn't want anyone to see.
Right after you tell me how that guy paid his legal fees.
I believe he was referring to the system they had before, the illegal warrentless wiretapping.
Dear Stack overflow, every time I try to play this disc it keeps popping up an error. I've narrowed it down to this one component that doesn't seem to do anything other then give me headaches. Help me bypass it.
Minimizing
Not for this one I'm not. There are indeed labs that do brutal things to animals, and we have to draw the line on ethical concerns somewhere. And that line is fairly proportional to how similar the test subject is to us. So we really really care about what happens to us. We have social obligations to other humans. We care about what happens to monkeys. Small furry mammals shouldn't suffer too much. Insects and fish... well... meh. And we're perfectly fine with brutally twisting and subverting the very nature of bacteria and viruses.
But for these rats, and the monkeys the parent was talking about? It really is that minimal. Get over it.
And progress is progress. Life is better, longer, more harmonically aligned with the forces that be, whatever floats your boat. It's better than the brutish nasty and short lives these animals would have out in the wild. It's exactly that sort of thing we're progressing away from.
The thing is, you don't seem to consider them part of our "society." Meaning, you don't see them benefiting from the experiments.
Uh..... Proving that animals show empathy probably goes a long way for showing how similar they are to us. Which would mean we feel worse about doing bad things to them. I'd say rats on the whole have benefited greatly from this experiment.
I'm not opposed to animal testing. I'm not opposed to a modicum of suffering to benefit the greater good. I'm opposed to "species-centric sociopathy," which is really a short step away from general sociopathy.
Good. I really don't think you'll find any of the latter in this study, the study with the monkeys, or in me. So don't get your panties in a twist.
But please, just remember that animals do not have human rights. No, we're not that different from them, but we ARE different.
About the time their grant money ran out.
But let me go one further. You obviously feel aghast at the thought of creating a system which inflicts pain in a monkey. Now, this isn't dismemberment, brain damage, or anything that will cause long term damage. (Does it even cause short term damage?). These are researchers trying to learn about psychology, sociology, biology, and how to make things better. You know, "Progress". That mystical magical thing that leads to things which let you live a little longer. Speaking of living longer, what options do these monkeys have really? They could be out in the wilds of Africa, where they'd lead a life that was nasty, brutish, and short. Of course it's a little late for that now, since it's a lifestyle you kinda have to be born into. They could be placed in a zoo, where they get stared at, and slowly go crazy. They could be a pet, for all the crazy people who have exotic pet licenses. Oh, but that requires some training, which involves quite a bit of smacking, so that won't do. Or they could contribute to society in a more meaningful way by being part of a study.
So while I understand that your bleeding heart goes out to these poor monkeys, it's not that bad, and stop getting in the way of science.
. . . so you're not insulted, you just take objection to it?
alrighty then.
But hey, let's go through your examples. Remember, it's not about taking privileges away from special people, it's about granting those privileges to everyone.
No special privileges granted to police officers to enter premises in case of emergencies,
If I see my neighbor getting stabbed I'm damn well going to enter his house to help him. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a cop, I've never had to go stop a stabbing. I have no clue what laws on what books give me this right, but I know I have it.
carry weapons openly,
Uh, we already have this. Anyone who can own a firearm anyway. Remember that guy with the AR over his shoulder at Obama's speech?
or detain people against their will despite not witnessing a crime?
Why do they have this privilege again? If they're a suspect, arrest them. If I don't want to talk to the cops, I don't have to. I know I have that right.
No special privileges granted to fire-fighters to restrict people from entering their own homes
If I'm standing outside a home engulfed in flames I want the right to keep the crazed mother from committing suicide too.
or to enter someone's home without permission?
Likewise, if there's a house fire, I want to have the right to dash in and save people. Yes yes, there is a fine line between being dashing and being suicidal. Judgment call.
No special privileges granted to ambulance drivers to go through red lights?
You got me there. Of course, it's really the ambulance and the lights that give them the right. And that's regulated. But I get what you're saying. It's not feasible, but ideally, if I had a neighbor with a critical stab-wound in my car and I was racing to the hospital, and just happened to have lights and sirens on my car, I'd like to be able to tell everyone else on the road to GTFO. But yeah, ambulances are simply above the rest of us for now.
the privilege to withhold information from a court,
You mean the right to remain silent?
But the Republicans already have Foxnews guarding the chickens.
I know that it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside to sneer at people who believe something you don't...
Whoa there. Sure, he's referring to gods as "invisible friends", and yes that's kinda sneerish.
But you're skipping right over the part where he's specifically sneering at THE ONES WHO ARE KILLING EACH OTHER over rather trivial differences. So, while you have a point about respecting each other, getting in a huff about such a minor slight is kind of playing right into his argument.
The fact that you're getting insulted over an insult to murderers is rather sad.
... ah! Got it. I failed to not miss the double negative. Sorry about that.
So you're saying that when he comes for his visit, if you tell him to pull out entirely from, say, microsoft, that he'll do it and the mutual fund will no longer have any investments in Microsoft?
Whoa.
Well thanks anon, my google-fu must have been weak.
The manager at my fund absolutely answers to me and the other people I work with
I just kind of assumed you somehow exerted control through, you know, telling him to do things.
Because you're arguing that you have some portion of control over the companies you own stock in. Like the ability to buy and sell stocks in the collective pool. Which is what fund managers do. wait...
I've never not been able to contact a fund administrator. Ever.
Am I missing something here?
Hey, got a reputable source for the "especially upper management, requires sociopath tendencies" comment? I was called out on it the other day and I couldn't produce anything. Sure, it sounds good and it makes sense, but do you know any actual research to back that up?
Because I've put solid effort into building a quality product with measurable results?
Because I'm an engineer that knows more about the product/industry/state of the art than the slimy salesman?
Because I'm not there to "represent" your company, I'm there to make the bloody thing work.