One could conceivably argue that this is indeed what happens sometimes. Though theoretically it happens less now than in the past. At least when reputable scientists are involved. There's still plenty of unscrupulous looting anywhere you find things of archaeological interest, but it's generally more for business than science.
"Aliens vs. Predator" had a plot? I don't think I can bring myself to try watching it again, so I'll only have your word for it. So... are you sure? This isn't one of those cognitive dissonance things where you expected one thing, saw something else, so your mind collaborated a new version of reality to make everything make sense again?
Sure-fire recipe for a snarky Slashdot reply: if it's successful work building on previous accomplishments, say "huh, that's not new, she's just repeating what someone else did". If it's groundbreaking work previously unachieved by anyone else, say "huh, that's just ivory-tower tinkering, nobody's replicated it and it'll never work in the real world".
Other people have pointed that out in a much better way.
Of course! One thing is a good coffee, which is dark brown, creamy, aromatic and (to my taste) with a hint of sourness, and the other is a black, bitter coffee which usually hides the lack of real aroma with a strong bitterness and smell of "toasted" more than roasted.
I agree with your words, but something makes me want to protest and I'm not exactly sure what I'm protesting.
I suppose it's that "hint of sourness" thing. I like a little more than a hint, especially when there's a citrus-like quality as I used to find in most African coffees or the earthy quality that I find in a good Robusta. So why does that bother me?
As an American who really likes that sort of thing, it's really freaking hard for me to find it. It was actually easier when the US was in your "no coffee" list, because specialty shops would cater to people like me. Now it's nearly impossible for me to get Robusta without finding a ridiculously expensive online dealer. Oddly enough, I can find Greek coffee a LOT more easily these days. I still can't figure that one out.
Regardless, overall the United States has not developed a very sophisticated tongue for coffee, but it's become chic to pretend we have. Because of this, I and people like me suffer. If we really had one, the specialty shops might go back to carrying things for slightly different tastes, rather than carrying "good enough" because one-size-fits-all.
Besides, what's likely to come from the increased popularity of coffee in the US is that hysterical idiots like the AC who went off on a rant about how evil coffee is will eventually scare enough people into starting a huge campaign, replete with pseudo-scientific "facts" and anti-coffee PSAs all over the TV, and eventually turn public opinion against it, meaning a punishment tax (something that, as a smoker, I'm very familiar with) and a greatly reduced availability overall.
I suppose what really bothers me about what you said is that sycophants in this country read and use things like that, statements that represent the generalized tastes of one single region, and parrot it in order to be "cool" without going through the bother of developing a real taste for it. Since they lack imagination, they'll all go for the same damn thing, the preferences of a single region, and in this case, of course it'll be whatever's most popular in Europe (since Europe is "teh coolest" to these people and the place from which to get cultural fads) and that's all that will be available. And while you guys like some good coffees, as I said, I prefer it with more of a tang and that simply will continue to be unavailable because people won't even bother to try it. I guess I'm just as bitter as the coffees you're complaining about.
Corporate personhood was never actually granted. It was denied and then the clerk of the court (a relative of a railroad baron (hint: the corporation in the case was a railroad)) wrote that corporations are persons in the header notes. What happened? Nobody actually reads all these cases, they look at the header notes for a summary. Thus, our judicial branch of government has made legal decisions based on the opinion of a clerk not otherwise involved in the case.
Doesn't matter, though, because the clerk's fabricated precedent only applies to corporations in the United States. I anal... I mean, IANAL, but it seems obvious that a "person" that doesn't exist elsewhere can't be sued here, especially if they also don't exist here. Unless, maybe, the post office delivers thousands of bits of mail to the courtroom and proves that there really is such a person after all. There was a precedent for that way back in Virginia, involving New York. Or in New York, involving Virginia. I think it was Burl Ives that didn't exist.
Anyway, this is a stupid idea and will never happen, but I support the thought behind it.
You know, I still remember those commercials and almost remember the address of that place in Pueblo, Colorado for a free booklet about consumer protection. When I was growing up, that was a phrase that was commonly heard everywhere. Including the media. You know, back when Ralph Nader was a respected name.
You could still get suckered, but there was information that had been compiled and you could get it if you looked for it (and not just from Pueblo). Then the Internet happens. Over a decade and a half after it becomes a daily thing for the average consumer and it's closer to the myth of the "Wild West" than the actual Wild West was. At times, it seems like the sheriffs aren't that much better than the bandits and occasionally you wind up sympathizing with the bandits more. And what does the hope-to-be-savvy consumer find when s/he looks for information of the kind they used to write to the fine folks in Pueblo for? "You need to get smart" is what it boils down to. How? From what? Who's the villain and who's the guy in the white hat?
Yeah, yeah, I'm oversimplifying. But really, this dichotomy isn't working for me. There's always been a chance for the consumer to get screwed, but it hasn't been so blatant since the uglier days of the Industrial Revolution. The fuckers have gotten smart and some of the fuckees have kept up, but most people are just hoping that when it happens, it's over quickly (better have "protection" installed, just in case, ya know). Most of the legislation regarding the Internet that I've heard of has been something to do with helping the straw boss keep his iron grip and helping the company sto' keep you from going to St. Peter- holy crap, my metaphors are all over the place here.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm looking forward to the next Ralph Nader. Where the hell is he? Or she? Or it? I don't give a damn, just get here already.
The nonsense you put in quotes but made up can be said for either socialism or capitalism. Let's take a look:
Your words: "You don't have an inherent right to the fruits of your labor, but somehow I do."
The way people associate this with socialism is to say that those who work less hard would benefit just as much from the overall economy as those who work harder. This does indeed sound unfair.
The way people associate this with capitalism is to say that those with the most will nearly always benefit, regardless of how hard they work, while the lot of those with the least will nearly always depend on the goodwill of those with the most at best and pure luck at worst, also regardless of how hard they work. This sounds unfair, as well.
Those are both arguments borne of 100% bias. Because of this, those who support one with 100% bias will make the accusation against the one they oppose and completely deny it of the one they support.
The argument you make against socialism in the above comment is a completely biased assessment that makes assumptions based on half-truths that would not stand up to serious inquiry by someone uninterested in bias. For what it's worth, though, I wouldn't expect anything different from those with a pro-socialist, anti-capitalist bias. Regardless, this is one more good example and I appreciate that you provided it. I think we have enough examples now, though, unless someone with the opposite bias wants to try to get a last word in, as they haven't yet.
Sure, but you need a couple of resources that you trust in order to bootstrap your research
Definitely, and all of the links you showed are excellent examples. There are even some skeptic sites I would add to that, but will I be able to place the same amount of trust that I do now in those sites ten years from now, assuming they exist? Probably, but I figure that people keeping an eye out for abuse is what will keep them honest. That sounds terribly cynical and I'm really not that cynical, but I don't think someone needs to necessarily be cynical to be skeptical.
It's only baffling if your mind is still a prisoner to the Matrix.
Or if I'm part of the Borg Collective? Or if I'm body-snatched? Or if I've drunk the water? Or some other science fiction metaphor that's handy to throw about until you have to explain why you're using it?
I've yet to check out your site, but will. As I've yet to judge how successful you are at your mission, I can only say I appreciate that you're trying.
The trouble is that you have to approach these grains-of-salt sites and the like with a grain of salt. The idea of a "fact agency" sounds very tempting as a quick fix, and I'm certain that if such a thing were created, it would do wonders at the beginning. But once there's a fair amount of public trust in it, that's when the potential for abuse becomes great.
Nothing will ever eclipse thorough research and hard questioning.
Anything that you can physically do, you are free to do. That's freedom in a nutshell. Liberty takes into account that your freedom can arbitrarily abridge the freedom of another, therefore some limit must be placed on certain freedoms to guarantee a larger body of freedoms for a larger social group. If you legislate freedom without this in mind, it is not liberty.
Another good example: confusing freedom for liberty.
For instance, you have both the freedom and the liberty to tell me to go fuck myself (you are able to do it and you are allowed to do it). You have the freedom, but not the liberty to hire some guys to come make me fuck myself (you are able to do it, but you are not allowed to do it). You have neither the freedom nor the liberty to make me do it yourself (your lack of freedom being your innate inability).
To put it another way, you have the freedom to sneak into your neighbor's house when they're not there and take their valuables. As long as you find a way to do it, you have the freedom to do so. If you did it, the ability to maximize the benefits to you that result in your own actions would also imply freedom. However, liberty says you're a dickhead and the cops will do their best to find you and get you. Your neighbor has the freedom to find you and get you, too, however you would be fortunate in the fact that he does not quite have the liberty.
I'd say that was more of an overall cultural thing than anything specific to do with the Internet. Some cultures are more open to disagreement than others. Mix them all up and give it the anonymity of the Internet and things will be good in some places, bad in others. Even if you do come across a bubble where disagreement can be respectful or without animosity or whatever, along comes an "Ugly [insert nationality]" and it goes downhill quickly.
I'm an American with an immigrant parent from a country in Europe. Among many other immigrant types, I've noticed that we can (and do) argue hotly for hours without any loss of mutual respect or friendship. The same is not usually true among American friends without this type of influence. Correlation is not causation and all that, but I certainly has far less misgivings speaking my mind among most first or second generation Americans than others.
Why are so many people desperate for rivers and why can't they get it the normal way? Tears would make terrible river water.
That thing that mussed your hair as you heard a "whoosh" sound is that people are generally unaware of it even when they do log in to Google. Posting as AC, I suppose it's entirely possible that you never actually log into an online account of some kind, but if you did, you'd probably know that there are things you are agreeing to things that you are aware of and possibly some things that you are not, but that if it's important enough to you to know, you can try to find out if that's the case. If you're not even sure there's something to look for however, you suddenly realize that your high horse is a pony and they're telling you to get off and give another kid a turn.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, go in and steal the artifacts?
One could conceivably argue that this is indeed what happens sometimes. Though theoretically it happens less now than in the past. At least when reputable scientists are involved. There's still plenty of unscrupulous looting anywhere you find things of archaeological interest, but it's generally more for business than science.
"Aliens vs. Predator" had a plot? I don't think I can bring myself to try watching it again, so I'll only have your word for it. So... are you sure? This isn't one of those cognitive dissonance things where you expected one thing, saw something else, so your mind collaborated a new version of reality to make everything make sense again?
[...] we probably have grown to think more about the story and people and less about big bangs.
Please explain Michael Bay.
How does this help me get my porn more efficiently?
Sure-fire recipe for a snarky Slashdot reply: if it's successful work building on previous accomplishments, say "huh, that's not new, she's just repeating what someone else did". If it's groundbreaking work previously unachieved by anyone else, say "huh, that's just ivory-tower tinkering, nobody's replicated it and it'll never work in the real world".
Other people have pointed that out in a much better way.
(You knew that was coming, right?)
Of course! One thing is a good coffee, which is dark brown, creamy, aromatic and (to my taste) with a hint of sourness, and the other is a black, bitter coffee which usually hides the lack of real aroma with a strong bitterness and smell of "toasted" more than roasted.
I agree with your words, but something makes me want to protest and I'm not exactly sure what I'm protesting.
I suppose it's that "hint of sourness" thing. I like a little more than a hint, especially when there's a citrus-like quality as I used to find in most African coffees or the earthy quality that I find in a good Robusta. So why does that bother me?
As an American who really likes that sort of thing, it's really freaking hard for me to find it. It was actually easier when the US was in your "no coffee" list, because specialty shops would cater to people like me. Now it's nearly impossible for me to get Robusta without finding a ridiculously expensive online dealer. Oddly enough, I can find Greek coffee a LOT more easily these days. I still can't figure that one out.
Regardless, overall the United States has not developed a very sophisticated tongue for coffee, but it's become chic to pretend we have. Because of this, I and people like me suffer. If we really had one, the specialty shops might go back to carrying things for slightly different tastes, rather than carrying "good enough" because one-size-fits-all.
Besides, what's likely to come from the increased popularity of coffee in the US is that hysterical idiots like the AC who went off on a rant about how evil coffee is will eventually scare enough people into starting a huge campaign, replete with pseudo-scientific "facts" and anti-coffee PSAs all over the TV, and eventually turn public opinion against it, meaning a punishment tax (something that, as a smoker, I'm very familiar with) and a greatly reduced availability overall.
I suppose what really bothers me about what you said is that sycophants in this country read and use things like that, statements that represent the generalized tastes of one single region, and parrot it in order to be "cool" without going through the bother of developing a real taste for it. Since they lack imagination, they'll all go for the same damn thing, the preferences of a single region, and in this case, of course it'll be whatever's most popular in Europe (since Europe is "teh coolest" to these people and the place from which to get cultural fads) and that's all that will be available. And while you guys like some good coffees, as I said, I prefer it with more of a tang and that simply will continue to be unavailable because people won't even bother to try it. I guess I'm just as bitter as the coffees you're complaining about.
Sigh. I need a refill.
God Bless America for having the Boston Tea Party and getting rid of you tea sucking b***ards as a primary source of influence for our drinks.
And fuck you, Puritans, for making so many of us complete assholes.
Corporate personhood was never actually granted. It was denied and then the clerk of the court (a relative of a railroad baron (hint: the corporation in the case was a railroad)) wrote that corporations are persons in the header notes. What happened? Nobody actually reads all these cases, they look at the header notes for a summary. Thus, our judicial branch of government has made legal decisions based on the opinion of a clerk not otherwise involved in the case.
Doesn't matter, though, because the clerk's fabricated precedent only applies to corporations in the United States. I anal... I mean, IANAL, but it seems obvious that a "person" that doesn't exist elsewhere can't be sued here, especially if they also don't exist here. Unless, maybe, the post office delivers thousands of bits of mail to the courtroom and proves that there really is such a person after all. There was a precedent for that way back in Virginia, involving New York. Or in New York, involving Virginia. I think it was Burl Ives that didn't exist.
Anyway, this is a stupid idea and will never happen, but I support the thought behind it.
Gary Larson had prescience years ago to see that, with their superior cranial size, it will be trivial to put these super-nerds in a headlock.
Just one of the very many bits of wisdom to remember from The Far Side.
You know, I still remember those commercials and almost remember the address of that place in Pueblo, Colorado for a free booklet about consumer protection. When I was growing up, that was a phrase that was commonly heard everywhere. Including the media. You know, back when Ralph Nader was a respected name.
You could still get suckered, but there was information that had been compiled and you could get it if you looked for it (and not just from Pueblo). Then the Internet happens. Over a decade and a half after it becomes a daily thing for the average consumer and it's closer to the myth of the "Wild West" than the actual Wild West was. At times, it seems like the sheriffs aren't that much better than the bandits and occasionally you wind up sympathizing with the bandits more. And what does the hope-to-be-savvy consumer find when s/he looks for information of the kind they used to write to the fine folks in Pueblo for? "You need to get smart" is what it boils down to. How? From what? Who's the villain and who's the guy in the white hat?
Yeah, yeah, I'm oversimplifying. But really, this dichotomy isn't working for me. There's always been a chance for the consumer to get screwed, but it hasn't been so blatant since the uglier days of the Industrial Revolution. The fuckers have gotten smart and some of the fuckees have kept up, but most people are just hoping that when it happens, it's over quickly (better have "protection" installed, just in case, ya know). Most of the legislation regarding the Internet that I've heard of has been something to do with helping the straw boss keep his iron grip and helping the company sto' keep you from going to St. Peter- holy crap, my metaphors are all over the place here.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm looking forward to the next Ralph Nader. Where the hell is he? Or she? Or it? I don't give a damn, just get here already.
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Don't gimme no filter error. Of course it's like yelling. It's supposed to be yelling.
And this is why developers need two monitors. How better to keep your skills sharp than to both play and watch at the same time?
Keep your pants on. He'll get back to coding in just a minute.
The nonsense you put in quotes but made up can be said for either socialism or capitalism. Let's take a look:
Your words: "You don't have an inherent right to the fruits of your labor, but somehow I do."
The way people associate this with socialism is to say that those who work less hard would benefit just as much from the overall economy as those who work harder. This does indeed sound unfair.
The way people associate this with capitalism is to say that those with the most will nearly always benefit, regardless of how hard they work, while the lot of those with the least will nearly always depend on the goodwill of those with the most at best and pure luck at worst, also regardless of how hard they work. This sounds unfair, as well.
Those are both arguments borne of 100% bias. Because of this, those who support one with 100% bias will make the accusation against the one they oppose and completely deny it of the one they support.
The argument you make against socialism in the above comment is a completely biased assessment that makes assumptions based on half-truths that would not stand up to serious inquiry by someone uninterested in bias. For what it's worth, though, I wouldn't expect anything different from those with a pro-socialist, anti-capitalist bias. Regardless, this is one more good example and I appreciate that you provided it. I think we have enough examples now, though, unless someone with the opposite bias wants to try to get a last word in, as they haven't yet.
Sure, but you need a couple of resources that you trust in order to bootstrap your research
Definitely, and all of the links you showed are excellent examples. There are even some skeptic sites I would add to that, but will I be able to place the same amount of trust that I do now in those sites ten years from now, assuming they exist? Probably, but I figure that people keeping an eye out for abuse is what will keep them honest. That sounds terribly cynical and I'm really not that cynical, but I don't think someone needs to necessarily be cynical to be skeptical.
Glad you pointed that out, as I'd taken the previous comment seriously and had immediately begun planning how to implement its instruction.
It's only baffling if your mind is still a prisoner to the Matrix.
Or if I'm part of the Borg Collective? Or if I'm body-snatched? Or if I've drunk the water? Or some other science fiction metaphor that's handy to throw about until you have to explain why you're using it?
Surprised you didn't use the word "sheeple".
This might just be the most baffling comment I've ever read on Slashdot. Which is pretty damned impressive. Kudos.
It could be. What does the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia say about that?
I've yet to check out your site, but will. As I've yet to judge how successful you are at your mission, I can only say I appreciate that you're trying.
For politics, there's also FactCheck.org.
The trouble is that you have to approach these grains-of-salt sites and the like with a grain of salt. The idea of a "fact agency" sounds very tempting as a quick fix, and I'm certain that if such a thing were created, it would do wonders at the beginning. But once there's a fair amount of public trust in it, that's when the potential for abuse becomes great.
Nothing will ever eclipse thorough research and hard questioning.
If anything made Slashdot seem like a waste of time, it's people wasting time by commenting on waste-of-time comments. Like this one.
I'm just doing my part.
Not quite. It's a different, but related concept.
Anything that you can physically do, you are free to do. That's freedom in a nutshell. Liberty takes into account that your freedom can arbitrarily abridge the freedom of another, therefore some limit must be placed on certain freedoms to guarantee a larger body of freedoms for a larger social group. If you legislate freedom without this in mind, it is not liberty.
Another good example: confusing freedom for liberty.
For instance, you have both the freedom and the liberty to tell me to go fuck myself (you are able to do it and you are allowed to do it). You have the freedom, but not the liberty to hire some guys to come make me fuck myself (you are able to do it, but you are not allowed to do it). You have neither the freedom nor the liberty to make me do it yourself (your lack of freedom being your innate inability).
To put it another way, you have the freedom to sneak into your neighbor's house when they're not there and take their valuables. As long as you find a way to do it, you have the freedom to do so. If you did it, the ability to maximize the benefits to you that result in your own actions would also imply freedom. However, liberty says you're a dickhead and the cops will do their best to find you and get you. Your neighbor has the freedom to find you and get you, too, however you would be fortunate in the fact that he does not quite have the liberty.
You're welcome.
I'd say that was more of an overall cultural thing than anything specific to do with the Internet. Some cultures are more open to disagreement than others. Mix them all up and give it the anonymity of the Internet and things will be good in some places, bad in others. Even if you do come across a bubble where disagreement can be respectful or without animosity or whatever, along comes an "Ugly [insert nationality]" and it goes downhill quickly.
I'm an American with an immigrant parent from a country in Europe. Among many other immigrant types, I've noticed that we can (and do) argue hotly for hours without any loss of mutual respect or friendship. The same is not usually true among American friends without this type of influence. Correlation is not causation and all that, but I certainly has far less misgivings speaking my mind among most first or second generation Americans than others.
Why are so many people desperate for rivers and why can't they get it the normal way? Tears would make terrible river water.
That thing that mussed your hair as you heard a "whoosh" sound is that people are generally unaware of it even when they do log in to Google. Posting as AC, I suppose it's entirely possible that you never actually log into an online account of some kind, but if you did, you'd probably know that there are things you are agreeing to things that you are aware of and possibly some things that you are not, but that if it's important enough to you to know, you can try to find out if that's the case. If you're not even sure there's something to look for however, you suddenly realize that your high horse is a pony and they're telling you to get off and give another kid a turn.
This is a good example. Equating socialism with a lack of liberty is a very good example of someone forming an opinion from 100% bias.
Not that I'm a socialist, but this is a good way of showing that no one is immune, whatever platitudes they throw out to show that they're above it.