I've dealt with creationists in the past. Their main argument basically boiled down to "staying the same." They see the unchanging, religious answer of "God did it" as strong because the answer never changes. If you ask now or ten years from now, the answer would still be "God did it." Science, on the other hand, is constantly changing. We see it as a strength because science gets new information and changes theories based on this information. They see it as a weakness, though. Ask a scientist a question now and ten years from now and you could get different answers.
Arguing with a creationist will never work because what we present as strengths, they will see as flaws. We have two completely different methods for determining how good an explanation is.
It's not that we want the FCC regulating network neutrality, but more like we were pushed into that corner.
In an ideal world, the market would work out any network neutrality issues and the government wouldn't need to get involved. For example, if ISP A degraded Netflix traffic in an effort to promote their video offerings and get Netflix to pay them, then ISPs B, C, and D would stand ready to pick up the customers who fled due to bad Netflix connections.
We're not in an ideal world, however, and the market is broken beyond repair (at least near-term repair). Right now, I have a choice of one ISP: Time Warner Cable. Most Americans have only one ISP or, if they are lucky, two to choose from. (Side note: Wireless doesn't count because the data charges make streaming videos an expensive proposition. You can't argue that an alternative to buying a small, somewhat affordable car is buying a $1 million tricked out limousine.) This means that an ISP can do what it wants knowing that its customers have nowhere to flee. If customers can't vote with their wallets, there is nothing reigning in the company from doing whatever it wants to do.
Even with this situation, we could have avoided government regulation, but the ISPs got greedy. They started complaining about Netflix getting a "free ride" (they pay for their own bandwidth fees the same as anyone) and tried charging Netflix to not be slowed down ("that's a nice web service you've got there... It'd be a shame if something HAPPENED to it..."). Needless to say, there was a frustrated outcry.
EVEN then, the FCC tried to enact some weak regulations that would have effectively let the ISPs do whatever they wanted. Verizon sued to get those regulations overturned and succeeded. The courts said the FCC would need to use Title II. Which they just did.
The ISPs backed us into this corner with their own actions. We didn't want to be here but they didn't give us any other choice.
And automated cars will likely just get better every year as better software is written.
Meanwhile, those meatbags will stay at the exact same level of driver quality. (Except, perhaps, for some improvement as bad-driver-meatbags turn over control to automated cars leaving only good-driver meatbags counted in driver quality ratings.)
Look at a traffic jam in a reasonably sized city. There are a lot more cars in them then there are planes in the sky. Now imagine these cars flying through the air instead of stuck in lanes on the ground.
Drivers already try to swerve into non-traffic lanes (side of the road) or lanes that they know will end to shave 10 seconds off their trip. Who is to say that, without full automation, a flying car driver wouldn't just say "why am I hovering in place in this sky lane when I can dive down, buzz the top of that building, pass between those other buildings, and be past the jam in a minute?" Flying car lanes would wind up being violated to shave off "precious" seconds.
This doesn't even get into the fact that a flying car collision would rain debris down on the people below.
Unless we get 100% automation, I hope we never see flying cars.
My method for dealing with those robocalls is to use Google Voice as my main contact number. When they call, I let Google Voice answer the phone and then block the number as spam. The next time they call, they hear "this number has been disconnected."
I can't speak for the court system by you, but I got a ticket once for going through a stop sign. (I did a "rolling stop.") I appeared at the court house and all of the people with tickets were, one by one, being told to speak with the prosecutor at which point they'd come back with a non-moving violation and a small fine. I wound up agreeing to "parking on the sidewalk" which got me a $100 fine and wasn't reported to my insurance company. (My fine was higher than everyone else's and to this day I still wonder if it was because I questioned the validity of the ticket since the officer wrote down the wrong street that it happened on.)
Not to mention that, when the public hears "alien life", they think of intelligent creatures or, at the very least, something the size of a house cat running around the planet's surface. However, life on other planets could still be bacteria-sized. Even if it wasn't a big life form, finding single celled alien life would be a huge discovery.
That is a danger, yes. If someone is attacking you online, you should be careful if you're going to retaliate in this manner. Still, in this case, the outed trolls admitted it was them and apologized (though it was more of a "sorry I got caught" then an actual apology).
True, but they didn't even want to make the effort. To them, the whole affair of tracking down who stole my identity and was using it to open a credit card in my name was a waste of time.
If they thought an identity thief with the proven capability to open credit cards in my name was a waste of time, they surely wouldn't do much beyond "fill out a report" for Curt Shilling's daughter.
I'm not sure I'd want to work for them no matter how much they offer. Sure, they give you a million dollars and you set up their network. Then, when your work for them is done, you become a liability. After all, you know how their systems work so you can undermine them or turn them in to the police. So you are forced to give them back their money and then you "disappear."
I'm sure these kids will be fine in the long term. They will likely suffer for awhile until they get themselves back on their feet - perhaps at a different job or school. However, they will hopefully learn that actions (including stuff you post online) have consequences and there are actual people on the other side of that screen. Hopefully, other people who would otherwise have engaged in the same actions will learn from this as well and not post horrific "I'm going to rape you" threats (which is their horrid way of saying "you've said something online that I don't like but I'm horrible at debating my position without resorting to graphic threats of violence").
Maybe if more trolls found themselves victims of the consequences of their own actions, the Internet would be a nicer place.
People suggesting that victims simply shrug off such behavior are either themselves psychopaths or have never themselves been the target of such abuse.
Exactly this. I suspect that most people who say "just ignore them" have had, at worst, someone say something mildly mean to them online. Once. And then it stopped. So when they hear of Internet trolling, they rely on personal experience and think "oh, something kind of like that happened to me once and it wasn't so bad. Just grin and bear it and you'll be fine." It's sort of like the people that say "Oh, measles is kind of like having a cold. I had a cold once and it wasn't too bad. Therefore measles isn't too bad either." When your personal frame of reference doesn't include anything remotely like the issue at hand, it's easy to dismiss it as "not that bad" and deride anyone complaining of it as being a "whiner."
I was a victim of identity theft a few years ago. Someone obtained my personal information and opened a card in my name. (It happened to land on my doorstep because the idiots paid for rush delivery BEFORE changing the address.) When I reported it to the police, they admitted that they weren't likely to put much effort into the case because they'd likely have to do a lot of work to track down the perpetrator only to hand the case off to another precinct. They also demonstrated some basic lack of understanding of all things Internet. (They got the online credit card order form with the IP address and date but called it a dead end. I showed them how to tracert the IP to find out the ISP and then told them the could get the ISP to give them the person signed into the account at that time. Not that they did the latter, mind you.)
In short, the police might not have the skills or the motivation to look into an online threat of rape by some Internet trolls. It's not like Curt Shilling got their home address, surprised them outside their houses, and beat them to a pulp. He just said who they really are. Everything that happened afterwards (losing jobs and spots on teams) was a result of their own actions catching up with them.
He said he would have ignored it had the comments been directed at him. However, these people were threatening to rape his daughter. As a parent, I can tell you that nothing turns a father into an attack dog quicker than his kids being threatened. These people were hiding behind anonymity to threaten his daughter with violence. All he did was remove that anonymity. Surprisingly*, they trolls quickly apologized and claimed they were just having some harmless fun and didn't really mean anything by it.
Some people need to learn that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences of speech. Say what you want to say but don't think that threats of rape will mean your boss will never hear of it or your coach will be in the dark merely because your Twitter handle doesn't list your name and address.
My personal rule is that I never say anything online if I wouldn't say it to a room filled with my wife, my boss, my family, and my friends. (Maybe my kids too, but they're young so there are some things that wouldn't be appropriate for them to hear just yet.) Granted, I would never think of threatening to rape someone's daughter - even as some kind of sick "joke" - no matter how anonymous I thought I was at the time. I guess trolling is just not in my nature. (Something for which I'll spend exactly zero seconds mourning.)
He exposed their identity leading them to be kicked off their teams due to their actions.
I fail to see how he "stooped to their level." Did he threaten them with violence? Did he pledge to jam a baseball bat up their rear? Did he post their address and claim he was going there to beat them to a bloody pulp? No. He just mentioned who they were. That was it.
I'm sick of this "posting graphic statements saying you're going to rape someone and then claiming 'just joking' when you're called on it." I'm sick of people even trying to claim freedom of speech. We have freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence. If you threaten someone with violence (and, yes, raping someone *IS* violence), don't expect to use "freedom of speech" as a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Part of this is personal for me. Growing up, I was bullied by a group of kids. I'm male, so the bullying didn't involve rape threats, but it did involve following me around and taunting me. Every. Single. School Day. Multiple times a day. Doors to my classroom would be blocked so I'd have to push past them enduring more taunts. I began to become paranoid that anyone who was laughing was laughing at me. One push one way or another and I could have been another story of a teen taking his own life or going out in a blaze of bullets. Luckily, a friend of mine spoke with my bullies who backed off. Turns out they just thought they were "having a little fun".
And this is what galls me the most. The trolls' friends telling Curt that this was all just kids "having fun." Because, apparently, some kids are so psychopathic that they can't even begin to fathom what their "fun" does to people until it is either made blindingly obvious to them or until they suffer personal consequences.
As a father and as a victim of bullying, I applaud Curt for what he did. He didn't get violent. He didn't rant and rave. He just stood firm, acted like a protective father, and took down some nasty Internet trolls.
I wouldn't advocate violence as a first option. First, tell people in charge or people who can support you (friends, family, teachers, etc). Most times, this can help you deal with the bullies/trolls without resorting to violence. However, if those people who should be there to help you don't/won't, then violence can be considered. Even then, though, you can find yourself overpowered and/or outnumbered in which case you'll be beaten up AND bullied.
He would probably like whistleblower status for everything, ignoring the parts of classified documents he released which were sensitive but not necessary to indicate the underlying problems he wanted to expose.
I agree. Releasing classified documents should bring the full weight of US law down upon Snowden. Judging by the Petraeus trial - where Patraeus gave classified materials to his mistress to help with her biography of him - this would be a misdemeanor charge, right?
Even if you could believe any guarantee (and that's a BIG if), I'd only trust it as long as those people are in power. With the upcoming 2016 election, the "you'll get a fair trial and no death penalty" could quickly become "HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! Ok, maybe a mock trial first, but make it quick. I've got the rope all ready here."
That said, he seems to be considering returning on the basis of certain guarantees from certain people.
And, come next election, those people will be replaced by other people who won't honor their predecessor's guarantees. Snowden will then face the full fury of the US Government as a convicted-guilty-traitor before his trial even begins.
And, just to take it further, suppose it was a Russian citizen released tons of information which embarrassed Putin's government and Putin wanted him back for a show-trial followed by life in prison (at best). Now, suppose that Russian citizen fled to the US. Should we return that citizen to Russia where we know he will not get a fair trial and will likely just "disappear" after a mock hearing? Should we send him home if Putin and his fellow politicians are calling for the citizen to be put to death as a traitor? Would we fault this Russian citizen for fleeing and call him a coward for not facing down the Russian government single-handedly? Or would the right thing to do be to grant him asylum and recognize that he took this brave, whistleblower action knowing that it would end life as he knew it in his home country and he would likely never be able to return again?
I think the Snowden trial would mirror the trial in Alice in Wonderland:
[trial begins] US Government: Now, Ha ha... are you ready for your sentence? Snowden: Sentence? Ah, but there must be a verdict first! US Government: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards. Snowden: But that just isn't the way! US Government: All ways are... Snowden: Your ways, your majesty. US Government: Yes, my child. Off with his head!
And I don't think any "magic mushroom" is going to make Snowden grow over a mile high and thus able to walk out a free man.
My boys and I recently got into Minecraft. We don't have PCs for each of us, though, so I installed the Android version of Minecraft on their tablets and on my smartphone. I know this is much more limited than the full version, but it works for us. I'd be curious what Microsoft plans to do with the Portable Edition version. Will they merge it with the full version so that MCPE has as many features as Minecraft for the PC? Will they set it up so that MCPE users can enter "normal" Minecraft worlds hosted on servers? Or will they end Android development and try to push people to Windows devices? (Hopefully not the latter as they'll potentially lose out on a big market.)
Also, I've seen some people post free Minecraft alternatives. Do any of these support Android devices or are they all PC only?
Slashdot Mirror
This fossil comes from a long time ago in a region Afar away. Cue title scroll and John Williams music.
I've dealt with creationists in the past. Their main argument basically boiled down to "staying the same." They see the unchanging, religious answer of "God did it" as strong because the answer never changes. If you ask now or ten years from now, the answer would still be "God did it." Science, on the other hand, is constantly changing. We see it as a strength because science gets new information and changes theories based on this information. They see it as a weakness, though. Ask a scientist a question now and ten years from now and you could get different answers.
Arguing with a creationist will never work because what we present as strengths, they will see as flaws. We have two completely different methods for determining how good an explanation is.
It's not that we want the FCC regulating network neutrality, but more like we were pushed into that corner.
In an ideal world, the market would work out any network neutrality issues and the government wouldn't need to get involved. For example, if ISP A degraded Netflix traffic in an effort to promote their video offerings and get Netflix to pay them, then ISPs B, C, and D would stand ready to pick up the customers who fled due to bad Netflix connections.
We're not in an ideal world, however, and the market is broken beyond repair (at least near-term repair). Right now, I have a choice of one ISP: Time Warner Cable. Most Americans have only one ISP or, if they are lucky, two to choose from. (Side note: Wireless doesn't count because the data charges make streaming videos an expensive proposition. You can't argue that an alternative to buying a small, somewhat affordable car is buying a $1 million tricked out limousine.) This means that an ISP can do what it wants knowing that its customers have nowhere to flee. If customers can't vote with their wallets, there is nothing reigning in the company from doing whatever it wants to do.
Even with this situation, we could have avoided government regulation, but the ISPs got greedy. They started complaining about Netflix getting a "free ride" (they pay for their own bandwidth fees the same as anyone) and tried charging Netflix to not be slowed down ("that's a nice web service you've got there... It'd be a shame if something HAPPENED to it..."). Needless to say, there was a frustrated outcry.
EVEN then, the FCC tried to enact some weak regulations that would have effectively let the ISPs do whatever they wanted. Verizon sued to get those regulations overturned and succeeded. The courts said the FCC would need to use Title II. Which they just did.
The ISPs backed us into this corner with their own actions. We didn't want to be here but they didn't give us any other choice.
And automated cars will likely just get better every year as better software is written.
Meanwhile, those meatbags will stay at the exact same level of driver quality. (Except, perhaps, for some improvement as bad-driver-meatbags turn over control to automated cars leaving only good-driver meatbags counted in driver quality ratings.)
Look at a traffic jam in a reasonably sized city. There are a lot more cars in them then there are planes in the sky. Now imagine these cars flying through the air instead of stuck in lanes on the ground.
Drivers already try to swerve into non-traffic lanes (side of the road) or lanes that they know will end to shave 10 seconds off their trip. Who is to say that, without full automation, a flying car driver wouldn't just say "why am I hovering in place in this sky lane when I can dive down, buzz the top of that building, pass between those other buildings, and be past the jam in a minute?" Flying car lanes would wind up being violated to shave off "precious" seconds.
This doesn't even get into the fact that a flying car collision would rain debris down on the people below.
Unless we get 100% automation, I hope we never see flying cars.
My method for dealing with those robocalls is to use Google Voice as my main contact number. When they call, I let Google Voice answer the phone and then block the number as spam. The next time they call, they hear "this number has been disconnected."
I can't speak for the court system by you, but I got a ticket once for going through a stop sign. (I did a "rolling stop.") I appeared at the court house and all of the people with tickets were, one by one, being told to speak with the prosecutor at which point they'd come back with a non-moving violation and a small fine. I wound up agreeing to "parking on the sidewalk" which got me a $100 fine and wasn't reported to my insurance company. (My fine was higher than everyone else's and to this day I still wonder if it was because I questioned the validity of the ticket since the officer wrote down the wrong street that it happened on.)
Or you could use non-standard units. And no, I don't mean switch to kilometers.
About 14.6 football fields make up a mile, so...
Them: Hello, sir, you're vehicle warranty has expired. How many miles are on your [insert car here]?
Me: 68,000 football fields.
Not to mention that, when the public hears "alien life", they think of intelligent creatures or, at the very least, something the size of a house cat running around the planet's surface. However, life on other planets could still be bacteria-sized. Even if it wasn't a big life form, finding single celled alien life would be a huge discovery.
That is a danger, yes. If someone is attacking you online, you should be careful if you're going to retaliate in this manner. Still, in this case, the outed trolls admitted it was them and apologized (though it was more of a "sorry I got caught" then an actual apology).
True, but they didn't even want to make the effort. To them, the whole affair of tracking down who stole my identity and was using it to open a credit card in my name was a waste of time.
If they thought an identity thief with the proven capability to open credit cards in my name was a waste of time, they surely wouldn't do much beyond "fill out a report" for Curt Shilling's daughter.
I'm not sure I'd want to work for them no matter how much they offer. Sure, they give you a million dollars and you set up their network. Then, when your work for them is done, you become a liability. After all, you know how their systems work so you can undermine them or turn them in to the police. So you are forced to give them back their money and then you "disappear."
I'm sure these kids will be fine in the long term. They will likely suffer for awhile until they get themselves back on their feet - perhaps at a different job or school. However, they will hopefully learn that actions (including stuff you post online) have consequences and there are actual people on the other side of that screen. Hopefully, other people who would otherwise have engaged in the same actions will learn from this as well and not post horrific "I'm going to rape you" threats (which is their horrid way of saying "you've said something online that I don't like but I'm horrible at debating my position without resorting to graphic threats of violence").
Maybe if more trolls found themselves victims of the consequences of their own actions, the Internet would be a nicer place.
Exactly this. I suspect that most people who say "just ignore them" have had, at worst, someone say something mildly mean to them online. Once. And then it stopped. So when they hear of Internet trolling, they rely on personal experience and think "oh, something kind of like that happened to me once and it wasn't so bad. Just grin and bear it and you'll be fine." It's sort of like the people that say "Oh, measles is kind of like having a cold. I had a cold once and it wasn't too bad. Therefore measles isn't too bad either." When your personal frame of reference doesn't include anything remotely like the issue at hand, it's easy to dismiss it as "not that bad" and deride anyone complaining of it as being a "whiner."
I was a victim of identity theft a few years ago. Someone obtained my personal information and opened a card in my name. (It happened to land on my doorstep because the idiots paid for rush delivery BEFORE changing the address.) When I reported it to the police, they admitted that they weren't likely to put much effort into the case because they'd likely have to do a lot of work to track down the perpetrator only to hand the case off to another precinct. They also demonstrated some basic lack of understanding of all things Internet. (They got the online credit card order form with the IP address and date but called it a dead end. I showed them how to tracert the IP to find out the ISP and then told them the could get the ISP to give them the person signed into the account at that time. Not that they did the latter, mind you.)
In short, the police might not have the skills or the motivation to look into an online threat of rape by some Internet trolls. It's not like Curt Shilling got their home address, surprised them outside their houses, and beat them to a pulp. He just said who they really are. Everything that happened afterwards (losing jobs and spots on teams) was a result of their own actions catching up with them.
He said he would have ignored it had the comments been directed at him. However, these people were threatening to rape his daughter. As a parent, I can tell you that nothing turns a father into an attack dog quicker than his kids being threatened. These people were hiding behind anonymity to threaten his daughter with violence. All he did was remove that anonymity. Surprisingly*, they trolls quickly apologized and claimed they were just having some harmless fun and didn't really mean anything by it.
Some people need to learn that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences of speech. Say what you want to say but don't think that threats of rape will mean your boss will never hear of it or your coach will be in the dark merely because your Twitter handle doesn't list your name and address.
* Not surprisingly at all.
My personal rule is that I never say anything online if I wouldn't say it to a room filled with my wife, my boss, my family, and my friends. (Maybe my kids too, but they're young so there are some things that wouldn't be appropriate for them to hear just yet.) Granted, I would never think of threatening to rape someone's daughter - even as some kind of sick "joke" - no matter how anonymous I thought I was at the time. I guess trolling is just not in my nature. (Something for which I'll spend exactly zero seconds mourning.)
The trolls threatened to rape his daughter.
He exposed their identity leading them to be kicked off their teams due to their actions.
I fail to see how he "stooped to their level." Did he threaten them with violence? Did he pledge to jam a baseball bat up their rear? Did he post their address and claim he was going there to beat them to a bloody pulp? No. He just mentioned who they were. That was it.
I'm sick of this "posting graphic statements saying you're going to rape someone and then claiming 'just joking' when you're called on it." I'm sick of people even trying to claim freedom of speech. We have freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence. If you threaten someone with violence (and, yes, raping someone *IS* violence), don't expect to use "freedom of speech" as a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Part of this is personal for me. Growing up, I was bullied by a group of kids. I'm male, so the bullying didn't involve rape threats, but it did involve following me around and taunting me. Every. Single. School Day. Multiple times a day. Doors to my classroom would be blocked so I'd have to push past them enduring more taunts. I began to become paranoid that anyone who was laughing was laughing at me. One push one way or another and I could have been another story of a teen taking his own life or going out in a blaze of bullets. Luckily, a friend of mine spoke with my bullies who backed off. Turns out they just thought they were "having a little fun".
And this is what galls me the most. The trolls' friends telling Curt that this was all just kids "having fun." Because, apparently, some kids are so psychopathic that they can't even begin to fathom what their "fun" does to people until it is either made blindingly obvious to them or until they suffer personal consequences.
As a father and as a victim of bullying, I applaud Curt for what he did. He didn't get violent. He didn't rant and rave. He just stood firm, acted like a protective father, and took down some nasty Internet trolls.
I wouldn't advocate violence as a first option. First, tell people in charge or people who can support you (friends, family, teachers, etc). Most times, this can help you deal with the bullies/trolls without resorting to violence. However, if those people who should be there to help you don't/won't, then violence can be considered. Even then, though, you can find yourself overpowered and/or outnumbered in which case you'll be beaten up AND bullied.
I agree. Releasing classified documents should bring the full weight of US law down upon Snowden. Judging by the Petraeus trial - where Patraeus gave classified materials to his mistress to help with her biography of him - this would be a misdemeanor charge, right?
Even if you could believe any guarantee (and that's a BIG if), I'd only trust it as long as those people are in power. With the upcoming 2016 election, the "you'll get a fair trial and no death penalty" could quickly become "HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! Ok, maybe a mock trial first, but make it quick. I've got the rope all ready here."
And, come next election, those people will be replaced by other people who won't honor their predecessor's guarantees. Snowden will then face the full fury of the US Government as a convicted-guilty-traitor before his trial even begins.
And, just to take it further, suppose it was a Russian citizen released tons of information which embarrassed Putin's government and Putin wanted him back for a show-trial followed by life in prison (at best). Now, suppose that Russian citizen fled to the US. Should we return that citizen to Russia where we know he will not get a fair trial and will likely just "disappear" after a mock hearing? Should we send him home if Putin and his fellow politicians are calling for the citizen to be put to death as a traitor? Would we fault this Russian citizen for fleeing and call him a coward for not facing down the Russian government single-handedly? Or would the right thing to do be to grant him asylum and recognize that he took this brave, whistleblower action knowing that it would end life as he knew it in his home country and he would likely never be able to return again?
I think the Snowden trial would mirror the trial in Alice in Wonderland:
[trial begins]
US Government: Now, Ha ha... are you ready for your sentence?
Snowden: Sentence? Ah, but there must be a verdict first!
US Government: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.
Snowden: But that just isn't the way!
US Government: All ways are...
Snowden: Your ways, your majesty.
US Government: Yes, my child. Off with his head!
And I don't think any "magic mushroom" is going to make Snowden grow over a mile high and thus able to walk out a free man.
My boys and I recently got into Minecraft. We don't have PCs for each of us, though, so I installed the Android version of Minecraft on their tablets and on my smartphone. I know this is much more limited than the full version, but it works for us. I'd be curious what Microsoft plans to do with the Portable Edition version. Will they merge it with the full version so that MCPE has as many features as Minecraft for the PC? Will they set it up so that MCPE users can enter "normal" Minecraft worlds hosted on servers? Or will they end Android development and try to push people to Windows devices? (Hopefully not the latter as they'll potentially lose out on a big market.)
Also, I've seen some people post free Minecraft alternatives. Do any of these support Android devices or are they all PC only?