Perhaps it's time to downvalue memory and detail retention? With the internet always available, knowing what to do seems to be the key to success, while figuring out how to do it can be achieved with a quick search (I personally start with wikipedia). What cannot be found on wikipedia is how to model a problem such that it can be deconstructed into smaller pieces. That's where a broad and comprehensive education comes in. I'm all for requiring less memory intensive tasks, and more 'from-start-to-finish' problem solving tasks that require active creativity and input.
As for critical thinking, hell yes. The world as a whole can only benefit from critical thinking and questioning beliefs. Stop with the 'listen and believe', start with the 'independently verify'. This would help in matters ranging from 'whom can I trust with my life savings?' to 'what political candidate isn't a twisted sadist lying bastard hellbent on screwing the whole country?'. And to sweeten the bargain, once the citizenry starts practising this type of behaviour, politicians and corporations will have to follow suit if they wish to retain their voters/consumers.
... then they obviously can't make decent engineering decisions either....
I only wish to point out here that you are stating that Intel, the premiere CPU producer for the entire world, "obviously can't make decent engineering decisions". Were you to say something like that on a forum frequented by hardware-savvy engineers, it could result in a view of you that was not altogether positive.
When the only source of information you accept as legitimate is a horde of morons who fly into screaming apoplexy because someone says "Hey guys, when you're alone on an elevator with a woman you've never met before, leaning in close and inviting her to an orgy is kinda creepy. Don't do that." you need to take a long hard look at yourself, and realize you're either an idiot who needs to shut the hell up before your foot goes any further down your throat, or you maybe need to actually look at the world.
That review thing? It never actually happened - there was no review. Just a dipshit who got butthurt over being dumped, and made shit up about his ex, then conned a bunch of losers into being his personal army of revenge. Looks good on you moron.
I will only address the last part, since you are a bit below the level I usually require to engage. Regarding your stellar claim that Eron Gjoni (linkey here http://thezoepost.wordpress.co... ) 'made shit up' I can only laugh. He has presented proof and verification for his claims, which interestingly enough, you have not.
Interesting. Though this seems to be one definition. I've been accused here of being an SJW and I've never sent a death threat to anyone. I don't think I've dox'ed anyone, but I can't be sure because I don't know what that is.
In case it was missed, I have not stated that *you* have done anything at all. There is in fact no point where I say that all SJWs are doing this. What I do state clearly is that the people who did these things are a part of the SJW group, not that every member of the group has done these things. I apologise if that was unclear.
Doxxing (I assume from 'Documenting') is when you put someone's private information in plain view on the internet for others to harrass/threaten.
I read your post all the way through, and you make some very good points. Misandrists are an extreme reaction to misogynists, and reverse discrimination violates the rule most of us learned as kids, that two wrongs don't make a right. People who attack someone based on their gender are idiots, doesn't matter whether they're men or women. But Intel pulling advertising over a bunch of griefers? Of either sex? That's equally idiotic.
Hard-core, bra-burning anti-male feminism was a reaction to the barriers women had to overcome. There's still plenty of sexism, lots of "glass ceilings" and silly assumptions related to competency for various tasks depending on your gender and stuff, but I'd like to think we're making some progress as time goes on.
And not just for women. 20% of all nurses are now men. And let me tell you, when you're ill, really ill, you don't care about the gender of the person helping you.
Since you use the term "bunch of griefers" I will assume that you have never heard of Leigh Alexander. You will be hard pressed to find a more vehement, vitriolic, and chauvinistic person even if you lived 500 years. In fact, here's a shortlist of some of the more interesting things http://theralphretort.com/game...
I especially like where she states (way back in 2010 already) that all core gamers are maladjusted losers looking for maladapted coping via games. It's hard to find a broader brush than that.
And what precisely is the "SJW" movement. As far as I can tell, the so called "SJW" movent may as well be called the "don't be a cunt" movement. Somehow this is being portrayed as a bad thing by some people.
Interesting way to put it. To counter, I would like to share with you this wonderful picture: http://gamergateharassment.tum... In case you are wondering, it has so far been a pretty common tactic from the SJW side to dox and threaten opponents to silence. And if you think that this is the only incident where gamers get threatened (there's also a delightful log where SJWs send death threats to a 12 year old for not agreeing with them) here is a larger collation: http://gamergateharassment.tum...
I agree that attacking 4chan is a bad idea, but the 4chan problem users aren't the ones who keep their behavior on 4chan. They are the ones who think that, since they think X, anyone who doesn't agree with them must be attacking them and thus must be dealt with using the harshest of threats (including bodily injury and/or death) and hacking attempts. If anyone supports their target or opposes them, they become a target as well.
When you need to resort to death threats and intimidation to "win" your disagreement, then you've not only lost the argument but have moved into the areas of harassment or worse.
Think you need to add citations these buddy. Or is this the type of argument that doesn't need proof? Not saying 4chan is a heaven of angels, but the wide brushing + ad hominem argument without proof is rarely the right way to go.
I wonder how many of those Janet Jackson complaints were real and not just blown up by groups like the "Parents Television Council", who have way less members than the complaints reflect.
They were just applying th eold Question "What would Jesus do?"
The answer is obvious - he would have looked at Janet's tits.
It would be unprofessional not to. His father built them after all, and one day J-dawg will have to take over the family business.
1. Does the subject wear a turban? If yes, add to list. If no, continue. 2. Can you pronounce the subject's name? If no, add to list, if yes, continue. 3. Has subject slept with your significant other or ex? If yes, add to list, if no, continue. 4. Flip a coin. If heads, add to list, if tails, continue. 5. Do you want the subject on the list? If yes, add to list, if no, arrest subject for loitering and go to lunch.
Extra! Extra! This just in! New research proves that patent "trolls" actively reduce wasted "R&D" attempts by sad deluded companies aiming to reinvent by themselves and worsen already existing ideas! WIPO economic policies vindicated! Simplification within reach! Coming soon: the Golden Age of the One, Single And Perfect Idea Of Everything (a.k.a. "the Wheel") ! Thanks "trolls", your country owes you a debt of gratitude!
Dear Mr. martin-boundary, I am writing to notify you that I currently own patent #2139986924, entitled "Process through which a human being may communicate a non-specified message of arbitrary weight and importance to one or more other human beings without the distinct personal application of auditory signals and cues". It is clear through your most recent activity that you have applied this process without my express written consent. You are thus legally beholden to the patent owner, and unless you reimburse me a sum of €12,000 I will be forced to recoup the losses I have unjustly suffered from your piracy to the fullest extent permitted by US law. You have 45 minutes to comply.
Thank you for your cooperation Mr Troll, Esq.
PS. Perhaps you shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel.
Erring on the side of caution has great financial costs at the business level and great emotional costs at the citizen level.
Financially, whomever goes first on that carousel is going to lose a lot of money, unless every country on the planet agrees to jump in at the same time. Emotionally, just by looking at the aggression that pops up when someone suggests the very minute lifestyle change of having one vegetarian-food day per week... Well, you get the point. Multiply that by three (USA, Russia, and China all have to agree) and it is suddenly more likely that Hillary Clinton will be invited to the Arkansas High School Reunion of 1921 by a Triceratops riding John Wilkes Boothe.
You're not missing anything if you don't see GoT. It's just tits and swords.
Paraphrase: You're not missing anything interesting. It's just the most awesome thing in the world and the fourth most awesome thing in the world. All the time.
The fact that Facebook seems to be genuinely surprised by this response tells me everything I need to know about how they regard their users. They see them the same way an entomologist sees bugs - something to be cataloged and experimented on but not worthy of the respect one normally gives other human beings.
And how can this surprise you? Have you ever heard anything at all about Facebook respecting the privacy of its users? In fact, again and again and again Facebook ends up in the news with an anti-privacy scandal on its hands.
I am not saying that running social experiments on random people is a great idea (though it is funny), I am saying this is a 'no biggie' because it is neither surprising nor out of line with previous actions. That doesn't make it right, but anyone with half a brain should have seen it coming five years ago, and stopped using social media platforms 4 years ago. The only people who need to have these accounts are the marketeers. The rest will get much better 'social' results using 1) a phone and 2) mouth + ears.
I suppose since Facebook is owned and run by an immature child billionaire that I shouldn't be surprised.
And yet you appear to be. Facebook is run by a greedy thief, and you expect non-greedy-thief behavior. That is inconsistent.
Failbook has always proved and will always prove to be intrusive. Yet the sheep that use failbook continue to prove they are nothing more than stuipid little fucks that value nothing at all. Now with this "emotion experiment" the dumb asspie cracker Zuckerberg feels he is beyond any and all laws with his sheep still saying "fuck me in the ass harder Mark." The solution to this simple, shut failbook down. If you must keep in touch that is what email and *gasp* letters via snail fucking mail is for. Then there are also a new fangdangled method called a "website" that will allow for someone to put their shit up. Making a webpage is all too simple. If they can't make one then they are too fucking stupid to even exist let alone use a fucking computer so it is best to let the fucktarded sheeple that use failbook to fucking self destruct and perhaps earn themselves a fucking darwin award along the way.
I dare say I smell the distinct aroma of a Pulitzer from your florid loquaciousness.
But while a correlation does not prove cause-and-effect, a lack of correlation -- or more properly, a negative correlation -- can DISprove cause-and-effect.
Only in a closed system, unless you presume to have knowledge of the grand unifying theorem, and can thus explain every action in the universe.
Example: something -- all evidence points to one animal -- has been killing your chickens. You suspect the neighbor's dog. So you start keeping tabs on when the dog is let out, and when it is in the house. It turns out, after examination, that whatever it is has been killing your chickens when the dog was locked up in the house. There is no dispute... it is indisputable that the dog wasn't there when the chickens died. This negative correlation between the dog being out and dead chickens has DISproved your theory that the dog was killing the chickens.
Or, which is the recurring problem of the debate, there are two dogs, meaning that while your specific dog didn't kill the chickens, the biological family dog (Canis I believe) is responsible for the increased chicken mortality in the area. This is actually the same example as you first provide, with the rum and minister, except you have obfuscated the scenario.
It gets a bit more complicated when the numbers go up but the same principle still holds. If your theory is that X causes Y, and you find a negative correlation, for example X goes up while Y goes down, you have DISproved that X causes Y. Otherwise, barring other outside influences, you would have (no dispute) observed that Y went up as X went up. Anything else contradicts your theory.
I like how "barring other outside influences" is mentioned only in passing here, while it is considered the key disrupting factor in scientific statistical analysis, something a lot of very smart people spend a lot of time on accounting for and avoiding. And X going up with Y going down only works when X is the entire environment. If X is merely a part of the environment (as in both of your examples) it proves that X is 1: negatively correlated to Y, or 2: X is not correlated to Y but something(s) else is, or 3: X is correlated to Y while something else is stronger negatively correlated to Y. Given that these three points can be proven without any analysis, it does not seem the statistical addition shed much light on the facts.
And in the gun-control debate, we have in fact had ample time and opportunity to control for other factors. And it is extremely important to note that try as we might, we have found no other causal factors that apply to the situation. Yet even so, as X (per-capita gun ownership and frequency of carry) has gone up, Y (violent crime of all sorts) has continued to go down. Therefore: X does not cause Y. Q.E.D.
I love this. Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and many, many other pharmaceutical companies are spending billions and billions of dollars on trying to control for all the factors of a single human being, and yet are unable to do so for approximately 19 of every 20 candidates that go to phase 3 trials. And here, all along, you ( though stated as "we" by which I guess you are referring to other paid members of NRA) have somehow managed to control for all factors of every human being in the United States. That is an impressive feat. Even more impressive, you have managed to reduce this incredible superhuman complexity to just two features, X and Y. Not even FOX News can boil the world down so succinctly. Well done.
It isn't an opinion. It's as scientific as it gets.
I shall leave the refutation of this part as an exercise to the reader.
If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal? Why did he release info about capabilities which are clearly under the NSA purview and in the national interest?
Nothing the NSA did was "illegal", since they are a part of the government. This can also be seen in that no one has been arrested for what amounts to systematically breaking the constitutional rights of the american citizen. Their actions are however highly immoral and reprehensible, which is the reason that Snowden wanted to inform the public. This because he values right over might.
So, when people in the US publish lists of credit card numbers or social security numbers (or whatever is the newest hobby on the US interwebz), it's all fine and dandy because it's speaking the truth?
This situation does not fall under the new legislation domain. There is already a multitude of laws dealing with this exact problem.
I like how one of the worst CEO's of all time still makes enough money to go on a $2 billion shopping spree. At my job, I only get a bonus when I perform above expectations...
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's time to downvalue memory and detail retention?
With the internet always available, knowing what to do seems to be the key to success, while figuring out how to do it can be achieved with a quick search (I personally start with wikipedia). What cannot be found on wikipedia is how to model a problem such that it can be deconstructed into smaller pieces. That's where a broad and comprehensive education comes in. I'm all for requiring less memory intensive tasks, and more 'from-start-to-finish' problem solving tasks that require active creativity and input.
As for critical thinking, hell yes. The world as a whole can only benefit from critical thinking and questioning beliefs. Stop with the 'listen and believe', start with the 'independently verify'. This would help in matters ranging from 'whom can I trust with my life savings?' to 'what political candidate isn't a twisted sadist lying bastard hellbent on screwing the whole country?'.
And to sweeten the bargain, once the citizenry starts practising this type of behaviour, politicians and corporations will have to follow suit if they wish to retain their voters/consumers.
... then they obviously can't make decent engineering decisions either. ...
I only wish to point out here that you are stating that Intel, the premiere CPU producer for the entire world, "obviously can't make decent engineering decisions". Were you to say something like that on a forum frequented by hardware-savvy engineers, it could result in a view of you that was not altogether positive.
When the only source of information you accept as legitimate is a horde of morons who fly into screaming apoplexy because someone says "Hey guys, when you're alone on an elevator with a woman you've never met before, leaning in close and inviting her to an orgy is kinda creepy. Don't do that." you need to take a long hard look at yourself, and realize you're either an idiot who needs to shut the hell up before your foot goes any further down your throat, or you maybe need to actually look at the world.
That review thing? It never actually happened - there was no review. Just a dipshit who got butthurt over being dumped, and made shit up about his ex, then conned a bunch of losers into being his personal army of revenge. Looks good on you moron.
I will only address the last part, since you are a bit below the level I usually require to engage. Regarding your stellar claim that Eron Gjoni (linkey here http://thezoepost.wordpress.co... ) 'made shit up' I can only laugh. He has presented proof and verification for his claims, which interestingly enough, you have not.
Interesting. Though this seems to be one definition. I've been accused here of being an SJW and I've never sent a death threat to anyone. I don't think I've dox'ed anyone, but I can't be sure because I don't know what that is.
In case it was missed, I have not stated that *you* have done anything at all. There is in fact no point where I say that all SJWs are doing this. What I do state clearly is that the people who did these things are a part of the SJW group, not that every member of the group has done these things. I apologise if that was unclear.
Doxxing (I assume from 'Documenting') is when you put someone's private information in plain view on the internet for others to harrass/threaten.
I read your post all the way through, and you make some very good points. Misandrists are an extreme reaction to misogynists, and reverse discrimination violates the rule most of us learned as kids, that two wrongs don't make a right. People who attack someone based on their gender are idiots, doesn't matter whether they're men or women. But Intel pulling advertising over a bunch of griefers? Of either sex? That's equally idiotic.
Hard-core, bra-burning anti-male feminism was a reaction to the barriers women had to overcome. There's still plenty of sexism, lots of "glass ceilings" and silly assumptions related to competency for various tasks depending on your gender and stuff, but I'd like to think we're making some progress as time goes on.
And not just for women. 20% of all nurses are now men. And let me tell you, when you're ill, really ill, you don't care about the gender of the person helping you.
Since you use the term "bunch of griefers" I will assume that you have never heard of Leigh Alexander. You will be hard pressed to find a more vehement, vitriolic, and chauvinistic person even if you lived 500 years. In fact, here's a shortlist of some of the more interesting things http://theralphretort.com/game...
I especially like where she states (way back in 2010 already) that all core gamers are maladjusted losers looking for maladapted coping via games. It's hard to find a broader brush than that.
If anything, Intel pulling out is not enough.
And what precisely is the "SJW" movement. As far as I can tell, the so called "SJW" movent may as well be called the "don't be a cunt" movement. Somehow this is being portrayed as a bad thing by some people.
Interesting way to put it. To counter, I would like to share with you this wonderful picture: http://gamergateharassment.tum...
In case you are wondering, it has so far been a pretty common tactic from the SJW side to dox and threaten opponents to silence.
And if you think that this is the only incident where gamers get threatened (there's also a delightful log where SJWs send death threats to a 12 year old for not agreeing with them) here is a larger collation: http://gamergateharassment.tum...
Enjoy the moral fiber of the SJW. :)
I agree that attacking 4chan is a bad idea, but the 4chan problem users aren't the ones who keep their behavior on 4chan. They are the ones who think that, since they think X, anyone who doesn't agree with them must be attacking them and thus must be dealt with using the harshest of threats (including bodily injury and/or death) and hacking attempts. If anyone supports their target or opposes them, they become a target as well.
When you need to resort to death threats and intimidation to "win" your disagreement, then you've not only lost the argument but have moved into the areas of harassment or worse.
Think you need to add citations these buddy. Or is this the type of argument that doesn't need proof?
Not saying 4chan is a heaven of angels, but the wide brushing + ad hominem argument without proof is rarely the right way to go.
Then how would the baby feed? With his eyes closed?
Yes Ted, that was the joke.
Now you ruined it for everybody.
I wonder how many of those Janet Jackson complaints were real and not just blown up by groups like the "Parents Television Council", who have way less members than the complaints reflect.
They were just applying th eold Question "What would Jesus do?"
The answer is obvious - he would have looked at Janet's tits.
It would be unprofessional not to. His father built them after all, and one day J-dawg will have to take over the family business.
1. Does the subject wear a turban? If yes, add to list. If no, continue.
2. Can you pronounce the subject's name? If no, add to list, if yes, continue.
3. Has subject slept with your significant other or ex? If yes, add to list, if no, continue.
4. Flip a coin. If heads, add to list, if tails, continue.
5. Do you want the subject on the list? If yes, add to list, if no, arrest subject for loitering and go to lunch.
Extra! Extra! This just in! New research proves that patent "trolls" actively reduce wasted "R&D" attempts by sad deluded companies aiming to reinvent by themselves and worsen already existing ideas! WIPO economic policies vindicated! Simplification within reach! Coming soon: the Golden Age of the One, Single And Perfect Idea Of Everything (a.k.a. "the Wheel") ! Thanks "trolls", your country owes you a debt of gratitude!
Dear Mr. martin-boundary,
I am writing to notify you that I currently own patent #2139986924, entitled "Process through which a human being may communicate a non-specified message of arbitrary weight and importance to one or more other human beings without the distinct personal application of auditory signals and cues". It is clear through your most recent activity that you have applied this process without my express written consent. You are thus legally beholden to the patent owner, and unless you reimburse me a sum of €12,000 I will be forced to recoup the losses I have unjustly suffered from your piracy to the fullest extent permitted by US law. You have 45 minutes to comply.
Thank you for your cooperation
Mr Troll, Esq.
PS. Perhaps you shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel.
So to extrapolate from the TFA: The laws of physics do not exist in a vacuum...
Someone give this guy an xkcd award, then punch him in the face.
Erring on the side of caution has great financial costs at the business level and great emotional costs at the citizen level.
Financially, whomever goes first on that carousel is going to lose a lot of money, unless every country on the planet agrees to jump in at the same time. Emotionally, just by looking at the aggression that pops up when someone suggests the very minute lifestyle change of having one vegetarian-food day per week... Well, you get the point.
Multiply that by three (USA, Russia, and China all have to agree) and it is suddenly more likely that Hillary Clinton will be invited to the Arkansas High School Reunion of 1921 by a Triceratops riding John Wilkes Boothe.
Have you recently been to Sweden? Because that was a 10 x 15 km serious frikkin burn.
In Soviet Russia, line tows you!
You're not missing anything if you don't see GoT. It's just tits and swords.
Paraphrase: You're not missing anything interesting. It's just the most awesome thing in the world and the fourth most awesome thing in the world. All the time.
The fact that Facebook seems to be genuinely surprised by this response tells me everything I need to know about how they regard their users. They see them the same way an entomologist sees bugs - something to be cataloged and experimented on but not worthy of the respect one normally gives other human beings.
And how can this surprise you? Have you ever heard anything at all about Facebook respecting the privacy of its users? In fact, again and again and again Facebook ends up in the news with an anti-privacy scandal on its hands.
I am not saying that running social experiments on random people is a great idea (though it is funny), I am saying this is a 'no biggie' because it is neither surprising nor out of line with previous actions. That doesn't make it right, but anyone with half a brain should have seen it coming five years ago, and stopped using social media platforms 4 years ago. The only people who need to have these accounts are the marketeers. The rest will get much better 'social' results using 1) a phone and 2) mouth + ears.
I suppose since Facebook is owned and run by an immature child billionaire that I shouldn't be surprised.
And yet you appear to be. Facebook is run by a greedy thief, and you expect non-greedy-thief behavior. That is inconsistent.
Failbook has always proved and will always prove to be intrusive. Yet the sheep that use failbook continue to prove they are nothing more than stuipid little fucks that value nothing at all. Now with this "emotion experiment" the dumb asspie cracker Zuckerberg feels he is beyond any and all laws with his sheep still saying "fuck me in the ass harder Mark." The solution to this simple, shut failbook down. If you must keep in touch that is what email and *gasp* letters via snail fucking mail is for. Then there are also a new fangdangled method called a "website" that will allow for someone to put their shit up. Making a webpage is all too simple. If they can't make one then they are too fucking stupid to even exist let alone use a fucking computer so it is best to let the fucktarded sheeple that use failbook to fucking self destruct and perhaps earn themselves a fucking darwin award along the way.
I dare say I smell the distinct aroma of a Pulitzer from your florid loquaciousness.
And then presumably the scientists get replaced by cheaper H1B "scientists"?
But while a correlation does not prove cause-and-effect, a lack of correlation -- or more properly, a negative correlation -- can DISprove cause-and-effect.
Only in a closed system, unless you presume to have knowledge of the grand unifying theorem, and can thus explain every action in the universe.
Example: something -- all evidence points to one animal -- has been killing your chickens. You suspect the neighbor's dog. So you start keeping tabs on when the dog is let out, and when it is in the house. It turns out, after examination, that whatever it is has been killing your chickens when the dog was locked up in the house. There is no dispute... it is indisputable that the dog wasn't there when the chickens died. This negative correlation between the dog being out and dead chickens has DISproved your theory that the dog was killing the chickens.
Or, which is the recurring problem of the debate, there are two dogs, meaning that while your specific dog didn't kill the chickens, the biological family dog (Canis I believe) is responsible for the increased chicken mortality in the area. This is actually the same example as you first provide, with the rum and minister, except you have obfuscated the scenario.
It gets a bit more complicated when the numbers go up but the same principle still holds. If your theory is that X causes Y, and you find a negative correlation, for example X goes up while Y goes down, you have DISproved that X causes Y. Otherwise, barring other outside influences, you would have (no dispute) observed that Y went up as X went up. Anything else contradicts your theory.
I like how "barring other outside influences" is mentioned only in passing here, while it is considered the key disrupting factor in scientific statistical analysis, something a lot of very smart people spend a lot of time on accounting for and avoiding.
And X going up with Y going down only works when X is the entire environment. If X is merely a part of the environment (as in both of your examples) it proves that X is 1: negatively correlated to Y, or 2: X is not correlated to Y but something(s) else is, or 3: X is correlated to Y while something else is stronger negatively correlated to Y. Given that these three points can be proven without any analysis, it does not seem the statistical addition shed much light on the facts.
And in the gun-control debate, we have in fact had ample time and opportunity to control for other factors. And it is extremely important to note that try as we might, we have found no other causal factors that apply to the situation. Yet even so, as X (per-capita gun ownership and frequency of carry) has gone up, Y (violent crime of all sorts) has continued to go down. Therefore: X does not cause Y. Q.E.D.
I love this. Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and many, many other pharmaceutical companies are spending billions and billions of dollars on trying to control for all the factors of a single human being, and yet are unable to do so for approximately 19 of every 20 candidates that go to phase 3 trials. And here, all along, you ( though stated as "we" by which I guess you are referring to other paid members of NRA) have somehow managed to control for all factors of every human being in the United States. That is an impressive feat. Even more impressive, you have managed to reduce this incredible superhuman complexity to just two features, X and Y. Not even FOX News can boil the world down so succinctly. Well done.
It isn't an opinion. It's as scientific as it gets.
I shall leave the refutation of this part as an exercise to the reader.
If Snowden is a "whistleblower", why did he release so much material about things the NSA does which are not illegal? Why did he release info about capabilities which are clearly under the NSA purview and in the national interest?
Nothing the NSA did was "illegal", since they are a part of the government. This can also be seen in that no one has been arrested for what amounts to systematically breaking the constitutional rights of the american citizen.
Their actions are however highly immoral and reprehensible, which is the reason that Snowden wanted to inform the public. This because he values right over might.
Does that answer your question?
Does uploading a coroner's report into the death of a "patient" who purchased fake medicine count as personal?
Unless it was Jesus, I think you're safe.
...Stop creating new cards I can cook and egg on...
I think I've found your problem. What you are looking for is called a skillet, and it does not go in the computer.
So, when people in the US publish lists of credit card numbers or social security numbers (or whatever is the newest hobby on the US interwebz), it's all fine and dandy because it's speaking the truth?
This situation does not fall under the new legislation domain. There is already a multitude of laws dealing with this exact problem.
I like how one of the worst CEO's of all time still makes enough money to go on a $2 billion shopping spree.
At my job, I only get a bonus when I perform above expectations...