The answer to crazy conspiracy theories is not censorship. It is information.
We have more information than ever with positive information countering conspiracy theories in a shitload of supply. The problem is fundamentally that the information is not being absorbed. People see crazy shit at random and get sucked into that idea. They then seek out more information on it typically applying observer bias as they go. They then quickly get sucked into the echo chamber of stupidity.
Many minds are weak. It's not possible to solve this problem with information. If it were then conspiracy theories wouldn't gain traction in the first place.
The real problem is all those people in the world that create hyperbole by making up news headlines that don't exist and make claims that weren't presented anywhere in the source materials.
Now how the fuck you were voted +5 Insightful instead of -1 Offtopic is beyond me.
I am surprised that they actually figured out who it was *before* he got on a plane.
You emphasize *before* as if people don't need to stand around for 40 minutes before getting on a plane, and as if they weren't in control of the time they had to find him: "flights were temporarily grounded"
So I'm greatful a website finally caters to me by presenting a title and menu that is 15cm high on my screen and scales all normal text to size 32. You know... because I read Slashdot from the other side of the room and all.
In 1975 the UK did not vote to remain in the EU. They voted to stay in the EEC, a common trading block.
Don't be obtuse. The EC was effectively the EU in everything but name. Just because the Maastricht Treaty wasn't signed until 1992 and the name EU wasn't formally adopted by then doesn't mean that the EEC wasn't in nearly every way what the EU is now, quite specifically...
I think there would be strong support now to stay in a strong trading group with other European nations.
Don't be silly. The EEC wasn't just a trading group. It was a trading group with strict rules, higher courts, laws that govern trading members, membership fees, and (although in the 70s labour wasn't part of it) they comply with the 4 inseparable tenants of the EU. I don't know why you think there is any support for this in the UK. The only support you'll find is among remainders who are trying to soften the blow of leaving.
Unfortunately the EU doesn't want to offer that, instead demanding political control too.
The EU did nothing of the sort, and it wasn't the EU's decision. It's the decision of the EEC and it was quite specifically the non-EU members that said "hell no" to the UK joining. It's also not the EU which has political control over the EEC as much as the Scandinavian countries.
There has only ever been one referendum on the EU itself
Actually there was no referendum on the EU. It is painfully clear that in 2016 the referendum was on the choice of ???? and ???? and well let's just vote no because we're pissed at the government without any actual clue but at least we get to fund the NHS.
That's a good question given that a statistical analysis of votes would show that through attrition and the fact that leavers were overwhelmingly stacked against the aging population and remainers overwhelmingly young if you recounted the votes now based only on who is alive and extended the 18/19 year old votes to the current number and turnout of 18 and 19 year olds... you've actually voted remain.
EU Council President Donald Tusk made clear in a Tweet that a Canada style deal had been on offer from the start
Yeah. What he meant was that you will go through 15 years of negotiations which get put on hiatus twice and even a few years after it was signed it isn't fully ratified. That "Canada style deal".;-)
This is fundamental to the UK's EU membership since they joined. For the past 40 years the UK has only ever heard a one sided case for leaving the EU without any opposition. Eventually this all gained traction.
The UK has since joining never made the case for the EU. It never internally advertised the benefits or glorified what was achieved through EU membership. As stupid as the previous government was for holding a yes no referendum on an undefined question, all governments since the 70s are complicity in what is going on right now.
You go through the rest of Europe and you can see clear cases for what has been done. You can see the parks protected by EU regulation, the citizens protected by EU law, the economic benefits of trade; it is advertised. You can barely travel anywhere without seeing some sign showing something was done with EU funds or was the result of an EU program or some EU joint effort. In the UK... well you're lucky to find the EU flag anywhere. The UK has "nationalised" EU benefits, even the most recent and obvious benefit of abolition of mobile roaming charges was heralded as a success by the British government... of the British government.
People can not have an understanding of something when there are active efforts to prevent them from understanding it.
So do referendums, but the one to leave the EU was the largest vote in favour of any issue in the history of the country.
The UK has had a total of 3 country wide referendums. The largest turnout was for the the leave referendum. The second largest was for the stay referendum in 1975. Incidentally the number of people who voted to remain in the EU in 1975 differs by less than 20000 from those who voted to leave in 2016, which actually reminds me: Why did the leave campaigners re-vote on the issue multiple times until they got the answer they wanted, and why are they so afraid of another vote now?
There is a long standing tradition in the UK parliament that members of parliament can not vote on the same motion twice
If the people now have even a rough indication of what Brexit actually looks like even if the final option on what is delivered isn't yet clear, compared to the original vote is this really the "same motion" twice?
This is like a discussion with my wife: "Do you want me to cook dinner tonight?" "Yes!" "Great I'll make a lasagna!" "I don't want a lasagna!"
Honestly the original government which ran the referendum on an undefined yes or no question was retarded, in the most literal sense: retarded, adjective, "very foolish or stupid".
which is impossible and had already been ruled out by the EU when they said it.
Even if it were possible from a legal standpoint, it's a claim made by someone who has never negotiated a trade agreement. Doing that isn't exactly an overnighter, especially when one party isn't very powerful.
Compare it to say EU / Canada trade deal. That only took 10 years...
What's inconsistent about the UI? What bugs haven't they fixed? How little have you paid attention? Don't answer that last one, it's obvious that you haven't paid attention or you'd realise that the biggest bugs (math bugs) in the calculator were fixed with the rewrite it received.
But then you're not actually talking about the calculator, you're just using yet another excuse to complain about something irrelevant under the impression that every man down to the janitor and their dog on the MS campus is somehow responsible specifically for Windows 10 right?
Why? Windows comes shipped with a more capable text editor already. Why mess with the simple one? Are you that desperate for bugs that you need to start messing with probably the most reliable piece of software on a computer?
Do you also complain that nano doesn't support syntax highlighting?
I take it you don't browse at -1, or don't browse 8chan... or 4chan... any other examples of free anonymous forums you want to talk about? I mean they are all so lovely, filled with loving level headed people.
Google wasn't letting products launch whenever their employees called it 'done'.
Didn't say they were. I only said they had a structure which promoted supporting random ideas.
but the net result is a bit of an oversimplification since that $40 billion is primarily from ads.
Not really. Their ad sales are primarily driven by the access to people which is massively helped by "monetisation" of these random products. They directly support this profit.
Postini already had a business model when they were acquired. So did Picasa. So did Orkut. If these weren't money makers, why did they buy them?
Technology. The misconception is that Google kills something and all traces and work contributed to it disappear. This is actually quite rare. The vast majority of what Google kills they do so because of feature consolidation. What was bought in Postini supported Gmail. What was bought in Picasa evolved into Google Photos and processes were ported to mobile devices while the original user facing software was what was killed. Orkut is a different one, this is just another example of Google's failure to make social networking work. But for most other acquisitions, results of the purchases linger long after a product is announced as killed.
It's entirely possible for Google to have products that are pay-with-money rather than pay-with-privacy, yet they seem allergic to the possibility.
$40bn/quarter. Why would you want to mess with a good thing? Feeding and nurturing the cash cow is more productive than sheering the sheep in the next paddock.
Yes, they are doing very well if the bottom line is the only line that matters.
If they had no competition for these products, then what does that say about the market and the ability to monetise on the concept?
That people don't actually want it? That is entirely the point of Google's free developer time that promoted "brainstorm" style see what sticks ideas. It was only natural that this would result in a lot of failed products / services.
Will we expect all construction companies everywhere to adopt universal signage and clean it and maintain it accurately? Not bloody likely!
Huh? You Americans have a problem with standardising road and construction signage? To answer your question: yes, it is perfectly reasonable for a construction company to put in correct the correct procedures and equipment in order to maintain safety. That is literally a good chunk of the job of construction management.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer to crazy conspiracy theories is not censorship. It is information.
We have more information than ever with positive information countering conspiracy theories in a shitload of supply. The problem is fundamentally that the information is not being absorbed. People see crazy shit at random and get sucked into that idea. They then seek out more information on it typically applying observer bias as they go. They then quickly get sucked into the echo chamber of stupidity.
Many minds are weak. It's not possible to solve this problem with information. If it were then conspiracy theories wouldn't gain traction in the first place.
The real problem is all those people in the world that create hyperbole by making up news headlines that don't exist and make claims that weren't presented anywhere in the source materials.
Now how the fuck you were voted +5 Insightful instead of -1 Offtopic is beyond me.
I am surprised that they actually figured out who it was *before* he got on a plane.
You emphasize *before* as if people don't need to stand around for 40 minutes before getting on a plane, and as if they weren't in control of the time they had to find him: "flights were temporarily grounded"
So I'm greatful a website finally caters to me by presenting a title and menu that is 15cm high on my screen and scales all normal text to size 32. You know ... because I read Slashdot from the other side of the room and all.
In 1975 the UK did not vote to remain in the EU. They voted to stay in the EEC, a common trading block.
Don't be obtuse. The EC was effectively the EU in everything but name. Just because the Maastricht Treaty wasn't signed until 1992 and the name EU wasn't formally adopted by then doesn't mean that the EEC wasn't in nearly every way what the EU is now, quite specifically ...
I think there would be strong support now to stay in a strong trading group with other European nations.
Don't be silly. The EEC wasn't just a trading group. It was a trading group with strict rules, higher courts, laws that govern trading members, membership fees, and (although in the 70s labour wasn't part of it) they comply with the 4 inseparable tenants of the EU. I don't know why you think there is any support for this in the UK. The only support you'll find is among remainders who are trying to soften the blow of leaving.
Unfortunately the EU doesn't want to offer that, instead demanding political control too.
The EU did nothing of the sort, and it wasn't the EU's decision. It's the decision of the EEC and it was quite specifically the non-EU members that said "hell no" to the UK joining. It's also not the EU which has political control over the EEC as much as the Scandinavian countries.
There has only ever been one referendum on the EU itself
Actually there was no referendum on the EU. It is painfully clear that in 2016 the referendum was on the choice of ???? and ???? and well let's just vote no because we're pissed at the government without any actual clue but at least we get to fund the NHS.
Use the wired ones, instead.
Very funny! Find a place to plug them in...
Easy, just carry one of these. https://www.logitech.com/en-us...
Progress \ (^_^) /
Why not both? My headphones happily still work when the battery runs flat and the bluetooth function dies.
then who controls the society?
That's a good question given that a statistical analysis of votes would show that through attrition and the fact that leavers were overwhelmingly stacked against the aging population and remainers overwhelmingly young if you recounted the votes now based only on who is alive and extended the 18/19 year old votes to the current number and turnout of 18 and 19 year olds ... you've actually voted remain.
EU Council President Donald Tusk made clear in a Tweet that a Canada style deal had been on offer from the start
Yeah. What he meant was that you will go through 15 years of negotiations which get put on hiatus twice and even a few years after it was signed it isn't fully ratified. That "Canada style deal". ;-)
This is fundamental to the UK's EU membership since they joined. For the past 40 years the UK has only ever heard a one sided case for leaving the EU without any opposition. Eventually this all gained traction.
The UK has since joining never made the case for the EU. It never internally advertised the benefits or glorified what was achieved through EU membership. As stupid as the previous government was for holding a yes no referendum on an undefined question, all governments since the 70s are complicity in what is going on right now.
You go through the rest of Europe and you can see clear cases for what has been done. You can see the parks protected by EU regulation, the citizens protected by EU law, the economic benefits of trade; it is advertised. You can barely travel anywhere without seeing some sign showing something was done with EU funds or was the result of an EU program or some EU joint effort. In the UK ... well you're lucky to find the EU flag anywhere. The UK has "nationalised" EU benefits, even the most recent and obvious benefit of abolition of mobile roaming charges was heralded as a success by the British government ... of the British government.
People can not have an understanding of something when there are active efforts to prevent them from understanding it.
So do referendums, but the one to leave the EU was the largest vote in favour of any issue in the history of the country.
The UK has had a total of 3 country wide referendums. The largest turnout was for the the leave referendum. The second largest was for the stay referendum in 1975. Incidentally the number of people who voted to remain in the EU in 1975 differs by less than 20000 from those who voted to leave in 2016, which actually reminds me: Why did the leave campaigners re-vote on the issue multiple times until they got the answer they wanted, and why are they so afraid of another vote now?
Yup, a bit more liberty-impinging bureaucracy every year
Wait ... isn't this the UK's wet dream? I mean your bureaucracy is infamous, ... the stuff of legends and jokes the world over.
There is a long standing tradition in the UK parliament that members of parliament can not vote on the same motion twice
If the people now have even a rough indication of what Brexit actually looks like even if the final option on what is delivered isn't yet clear, compared to the original vote is this really the "same motion" twice?
This is like a discussion with my wife:
"Do you want me to cook dinner tonight?"
"Yes!"
"Great I'll make a lasagna!"
"I don't want a lasagna!"
Honestly the original government which ran the referendum on an undefined yes or no question was retarded, in the most literal sense: retarded, adjective, "very foolish or stupid".
which is impossible and had already been ruled out by the EU when they said it.
Even if it were possible from a legal standpoint, it's a claim made by someone who has never negotiated a trade agreement. Doing that isn't exactly an overnighter, especially when one party isn't very powerful.
Compare it to say EU / Canada trade deal. That only took 10 years...
What's inconsistent about the UI? What bugs haven't they fixed? How little have you paid attention? Don't answer that last one, it's obvious that you haven't paid attention or you'd realise that the biggest bugs (math bugs) in the calculator were fixed with the rewrite it received.
But then you're not actually talking about the calculator, you're just using yet another excuse to complain about something irrelevant under the impression that every man down to the janitor and their dog on the MS campus is somehow responsible specifically for Windows 10 right?
Better question, why does the inclusion of an app that can draw a line make an OS "real". You have strange priorities, and clearly so does MS.
Why? Windows comes shipped with a more capable text editor already. Why mess with the simple one? Are you that desperate for bugs that you need to start messing with probably the most reliable piece of software on a computer?
Do you also complain that nano doesn't support syntax highlighting?
Facebook took action to remove the scenes and footage once it become evident what was happening. So did Youtube.
If you don't understand why 8chan was blocked and the others weren't I recommend staying in school because you really need it.
It is the solution...
I take it you don't browse at -1, or don't browse 8chan ... or 4chan ... any other examples of free anonymous forums you want to talk about? I mean they are all so lovely, filled with loving level headed people.
Google wasn't letting products launch whenever their employees called it 'done'.
Didn't say they were. I only said they had a structure which promoted supporting random ideas.
but the net result is a bit of an oversimplification since that $40 billion is primarily from ads.
Not really. Their ad sales are primarily driven by the access to people which is massively helped by "monetisation" of these random products. They directly support this profit.
Postini already had a business model when they were acquired. So did Picasa. So did Orkut. If these weren't money makers, why did they buy them?
Technology. The misconception is that Google kills something and all traces and work contributed to it disappear. This is actually quite rare. The vast majority of what Google kills they do so because of feature consolidation. What was bought in Postini supported Gmail. What was bought in Picasa evolved into Google Photos and processes were ported to mobile devices while the original user facing software was what was killed. Orkut is a different one, this is just another example of Google's failure to make social networking work. But for most other acquisitions, results of the purchases linger long after a product is announced as killed.
It's entirely possible for Google to have products that are pay-with-money rather than pay-with-privacy, yet they seem allergic to the possibility.
$40bn/quarter. Why would you want to mess with a good thing? Feeding and nurturing the cash cow is more productive than sheering the sheep in the next paddock.
Yes, they are doing very well if the bottom line is the only line that matters.
Yes. Google is not an altruistic non-profit.
If they had no competition for these products, then what does that say about the market and the ability to monetise on the concept?
That people don't actually want it? That is entirely the point of Google's free developer time that promoted "brainstorm" style see what sticks ideas. It was only natural that this would result in a lot of failed products / services.
Tesla and just about everyone else in the "autonomous" driving game is using an Expert System.
Sorry but expert systems are not what does the image analysis. Go back to start. Do not collect $200.
I know. This YouTube video explains everything about Musk and how he affects people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I know. I for one will only buy cars where I have a lower chance of survival and less safety features. None of this guinea pig stuff.
Will we expect all construction companies everywhere to adopt universal signage and clean it and maintain it accurately? Not bloody likely!
Huh? You Americans have a problem with standardising road and construction signage? To answer your question: yes, it is perfectly reasonable for a construction company to put in correct the correct procedures and equipment in order to maintain safety. That is literally a good chunk of the job of construction management.