2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Note that it doesn't say that the propaganda is necessarily lies. Ideas, allegations, and rumors may be either true or false; information and facts specifically imply that they're true (though they may still not show the whole picture, or both sides of the coin).
Many propagandists in fact believe that what they are saying is the truth. And even if something *is* the truth, it doesn't mean it isn't also propaganda.
The problem is that all of the things of which you'd think "nothing would ever legitimately need to do this" turn out to indeed be things that some legitimate software needs to do.
Don't give them the option to click Yes to incredibly stupid things like "Run this program every time I start my computer, with no easy way to monitor it or stop it from loading" (the latest one I've seen is viruses that replace the user's shell value in the registry - somewhere not listed in startup lists - and then re-execute explorer).
...thus breaking antiviruses.
Or "Allow this program to spam the hell out of everyone with no controls on what they are doing on the Internet on SMTP ports and whatever it likes, as much as it likes, with no easy way of knowing what's accessing the Internet from my PC"
...thus breaking anything that actually needs to make zillions of internet connections on all sorts of ports, like to torrent that new Linux ISO.
Or "Allow this program to hide itself in the filesystem once it's loaded by overriding certain function hooks" - even if you ARE admin.
...thus again breaking antiviruses, which need to scan files before allowing the OS to access them, anything that installs hotkeys and needs to monitor the keyboard, anything that needs to open ports to listen such as games, instant messaging or file-sharing clients, etc.
They need to say "my theory proposes X and Y, and it forbids Z. If Z can be shown to be true, my theory is a piece of crap and I'll stop plastering it everywhere and brainwishing my kids into believing it."
For the sake of argument, what is the "Z" for evolution?
Every fact that's ever seemed to be at odds with the theory of evolution, scientists have eventually found ways to explain. So is there anything that would really falsify it?
Short of God showing up somewhere and saying "yup, it was me, I did it", I mean...
Ah, now you bring out the insult (that I'm quite positive you'd never dare to say if you were face to face, ITG) to try and prop up your advocacy for child molesters.
I'm sorry, but what insult are you referring to? Not to mention that you've somehow reached the conclusion that I advocate child molesters, which I do not. And you say I insult you!
I am merely saying that your original claim:
you appear to believe that a 13 year old child asking for sex makes it somehow more OK for a 40 year old man to have sex with her
...is a straw man. It does not make it "more OK". If something is wrong, it can't be "more OK". However, there can be varying degrees of "wrong". It is more wrong to kill someone than it is to drive 60 in a 55 MPH zone. Neither may be OK, but you can't rationally argue that one isn't worse than the other.
If you believe that violently raping a struggling girl is no more wrong... than sex with a 13-year-old who legally couldn't consent but otherwise did, and that is no worse... than with a 15-year-old, which is no worse... than with a 17-year-old (if the age of consent just so happens to be 18 where you live, supposing)... but it's "perfectly OK" to have sex with a 19-year-old... Frankly, I don't believe you really think that. So why are we having this argument?
I'm not saying it's "OK" in any case (well, except with the 19-year-old). But I'd personally want the first guy (the violent rapist) to be punished a lot more severely than the guy who did it with the 17-year-old.
Now you're telling me that we have 13 year olds soliciting sex from older guys. Before the condition was a 13 year old soliciting sex from an older guy, and the older guy taking her up on the offer. There's a significant difference.
One of them is a subset of the other one. You can't try to argue that the problem in the first case is no longer a problem in the second case.
You're also injecting a red herring; The level of perversion of the 13 year old is irrelevant.
It's not a red herring. It's a side-issue. If you have 13-year-olds soliciting sex from older men, you have a problem with perverted 13-year-olds. If the older men go along with it, you also have a problem with older men; but the two are not mutually exclusive, and locking up the older men is not going to entirely solve your problem.
Maybe it's just that people like you get uncomfortable when talking about more than one problem at once. Somebody has to be 100% at fault and the other person has to be innocent... is that it?
What frightens me is that you appear to believe that a 13 year old child asking for sex makes it somehow more OK for a 40 year old man to have sex with her.
Um, no. That's a straw man. A very commonly dragged out straw man, but still a straw man.
If you have old guys going around soliciting sex from 13-year-olds, you have a problem with perverted old guys. If you have 13-year-olds are going around soliciting sex from older guys, you have a problem with perverted 13-year-olds.
This is what your argument boils down to... the idiotic fallacy of "asking for it". Though its a bit more idiotic, since legally a 13 year old can't ask for it at all.
Laws that say something didn't really happen after it really did are stupid.
You wanna make something a crime? Fine, make it a crime, but don't try to claim that what happened wasn't really what happened.
As others pointed out, we'd have to return to a first-to-invent system rather than a first-to-file system, but if anyone who wanted to see the unfinished research of an inventor could do so, so also there would have to be some way to tell that they were looking at it, i.e. nobody could secretly copy off of someone else's research in a no-privacy world. There couldn't be any question of who invented something first, and the original inventor could safely complete the research and file for a patent, because anyone who tried to steal the idea, complete the research and file a patent on the idea first would be prevented from doing so. In effect, any idea would be "patent pending" as soon as it was first laid onto paper.
Since the patent system is an open system anyway - you file the complete process and anyone can look it up, they just can't duplicate it - I don't see how a no-privacy world would prevent the patent system from continuing to operate. Trade secrets, on the other hand, would be killed - in a no-privacy world there wouldn't be any such thing as a secret formula or recipe.
As far as I know the legal age of consent is no less than 16 anywhere in the US, apart from close-age exemptions in some states which certainly wouldn't apply to a 60-year-old.
Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit.
That's good to know... the referer header is easy to forge.
I thought so. So that pretty much answers the question... if you had some way of knowing that the horse is finishing 3rd in this race, you just place your bet on that.
I signed up using my MSN-messenger email, I did not give away my password so FB could not directly scan all my contacts. Other people however did. So more or less everyone on my contact list shows up as "Is this your friend". That was expected. But as time goes more and more of my genuine friends are showing up. People from soccer teams and the likes. And I never even had them on Messenger. I suspect that someone posted a link to our webpage and that FB scanned our guestbook.
Facebook also uses friend-of-friend relationships to guess who you might be friends with. If a dozen people are all mutual friends with each other, it'll consider all of them potential friends of yours, not just the one that had you in their address book.
Yes... but again, it said that the earthquake changed the mass of the earth.
I think you'd better read it again.
Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has determined that by changing the distribution of the Earth's mass, the earthquake that devastated Japan last Friday should have sped up the Earth's rotation
You missed his point. The earth revolves around the sun once per year; the sun revolves around the earth once per day. The two statements are completely different. They are not two ways of saying the same thing; a year is not the same as a day.
To put the latter statement into a heliocentric frame of reference, you'd have to say that a day is the length of time required for the earth's rotation to carry a point on the earth's surface all the way around its axis and return it back to the same position relative to the sun.
If I go ice skating and start spinning, when I pull my arms in and spin faster i DID NOT change my mass, I redistributed it. I still weigh the exact same amount as did before the maneuver.
So you obviously understand how earthquakes increase the speed of the earth's rotation without changing its mass...
the next "greater evil" (there's always a maximum) becomes... patent laws. Why should I keep them in place?
Patent laws protect you as much as anyone - if little old unheard-of you invents the next iPhone, Apple can't just steal it and crush you with its market share. Inventors will never allow you to destroy the patent process entirely; they have too much invested in the system.
in a "everything in the open" patents acts even more as a hindrance that a promoter for invention, by promoting the individualism over the collaboration effort.
No; human nature does that. The patent system is not the cause; it is only a by-product.
Poole saying that 4chan makes enough to "break even" implies that they make more than that. It's highly unlikely that they make the precise amount required for them to break even. Unless he was lying, his statement probably means they make enough to break even, and then some. How much more may be unknown, but it's probably some non-zero value.
Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard.
So? They'd just have to move back to "first to invent"... the main problem with it was that it's too hard to figure out who first invented something, which is a problem that doesn't exist in our hypothetical transparent world.
Slashdot Mirror
Truthful is orthogonal to propaganda.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Note that it doesn't say that the propaganda is necessarily lies. Ideas, allegations, and rumors may be either true or false; information and facts specifically imply that they're true (though they may still not show the whole picture, or both sides of the coin).
Many propagandists in fact believe that what they are saying is the truth. And even if something *is* the truth, it doesn't mean it isn't also propaganda.
The problem is that all of the things of which you'd think "nothing would ever legitimately need to do this" turn out to indeed be things that some legitimate software needs to do.
Don't give them the option to click Yes to incredibly stupid things like "Run this program every time I start my computer, with no easy way to monitor it or stop it from loading" (the latest one I've seen is viruses that replace the user's shell value in the registry - somewhere not listed in startup lists - and then re-execute explorer).
...thus breaking antiviruses.
Or "Allow this program to spam the hell out of everyone with no controls on what they are doing on the Internet on SMTP ports and whatever it likes, as much as it likes, with no easy way of knowing what's accessing the Internet from my PC"
...thus breaking anything that actually needs to make zillions of internet connections on all sorts of ports, like to torrent that new Linux ISO.
Or "Allow this program to hide itself in the filesystem once it's loaded by overriding certain function hooks" - even if you ARE admin.
...thus again breaking antiviruses, which need to scan files before allowing the OS to access them, anything that installs hotkeys and needs to monitor the keyboard, anything that needs to open ports to listen such as games, instant messaging or file-sharing clients, etc.
They need to say "my theory proposes X and Y, and it forbids Z. If Z can be shown to be true, my theory is a piece of crap and I'll stop plastering it everywhere and brainwishing my kids into believing it."
For the sake of argument, what is the "Z" for evolution?
Every fact that's ever seemed to be at odds with the theory of evolution, scientists have eventually found ways to explain. So is there anything that would really falsify it?
Short of God showing up somewhere and saying "yup, it was me, I did it", I mean...
Ah, now you bring out the insult (that I'm quite positive you'd never dare to say if you were face to face, ITG) to try and prop up your advocacy for child molesters.
I'm sorry, but what insult are you referring to? Not to mention that you've somehow reached the conclusion that I advocate child molesters, which I do not. And you say I insult you!
I am merely saying that your original claim:
you appear to believe that a 13 year old child asking for sex makes it somehow more OK for a 40 year old man to have sex with her
...is a straw man. It does not make it "more OK". If something is wrong, it can't be "more OK". However, there can be varying degrees of "wrong". It is more wrong to kill someone than it is to drive 60 in a 55 MPH zone. Neither may be OK, but you can't rationally argue that one isn't worse than the other.
If you believe that violently raping a struggling girl is no more wrong...
than sex with a 13-year-old who legally couldn't consent but otherwise did, and that is no worse...
than with a 15-year-old, which is no worse...
than with a 17-year-old (if the age of consent just so happens to be 18 where you live, supposing)...
but it's "perfectly OK" to have sex with a 19-year-old...
Frankly, I don't believe you really think that. So why are we having this argument?
I'm not saying it's "OK" in any case (well, except with the 19-year-old). But I'd personally want the first guy (the violent rapist) to be punished a lot more severely than the guy who did it with the 17-year-old.
Now you're telling me that we have 13 year olds soliciting sex from older guys. Before the condition was a 13 year old soliciting sex from an older guy, and the older guy taking her up on the offer. There's a significant difference.
One of them is a subset of the other one. You can't try to argue that the problem in the first case is no longer a problem in the second case.
You're also injecting a red herring; The level of perversion of the 13 year old is irrelevant.
It's not a red herring. It's a side-issue. If you have 13-year-olds soliciting sex from older men, you have a problem with perverted 13-year-olds. If the older men go along with it, you also have a problem with older men; but the two are not mutually exclusive, and locking up the older men is not going to entirely solve your problem.
Maybe it's just that people like you get uncomfortable when talking about more than one problem at once. Somebody has to be 100% at fault and the other person has to be innocent... is that it?
What frightens me is that you appear to believe that a 13 year old child asking for sex makes it somehow more OK for a 40 year old man to have sex with her.
Um, no. That's a straw man. A very commonly dragged out straw man, but still a straw man.
If you have old guys going around soliciting sex from 13-year-olds, you have a problem with perverted old guys.
If you have 13-year-olds are going around soliciting sex from older guys, you have a problem with perverted 13-year-olds.
This is what your argument boils down to... the idiotic fallacy of "asking for it". Though its a bit more idiotic, since legally a 13 year old can't ask for it at all.
Laws that say something didn't really happen after it really did are stupid.
You wanna make something a crime? Fine, make it a crime, but don't try to claim that what happened wasn't really what happened.
As others pointed out, we'd have to return to a first-to-invent system rather than a first-to-file system, but if anyone who wanted to see the unfinished research of an inventor could do so, so also there would have to be some way to tell that they were looking at it, i.e. nobody could secretly copy off of someone else's research in a no-privacy world. There couldn't be any question of who invented something first, and the original inventor could safely complete the research and file for a patent, because anyone who tried to steal the idea, complete the research and file a patent on the idea first would be prevented from doing so. In effect, any idea would be "patent pending" as soon as it was first laid onto paper.
Since the patent system is an open system anyway - you file the complete process and anyone can look it up, they just can't duplicate it - I don't see how a no-privacy world would prevent the patent system from continuing to operate. Trade secrets, on the other hand, would be killed - in a no-privacy world there wouldn't be any such thing as a secret formula or recipe.
As far as I know the legal age of consent is no less than 16 anywhere in the US, apart from close-age exemptions in some states which certainly wouldn't apply to a 60-year-old.
Yeah, if you ignore FAIL FAIL FAIL YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL FAIL.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
We already do. It's called RefControl.
Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit.
That's good to know... the referer header is easy to forge.
I thought so. So that pretty much answers the question... if you had some way of knowing that the horse is finishing 3rd in this race, you just place your bet on that.
I signed up using my MSN-messenger email, I did not give away my password so FB could not directly scan all my contacts. Other people however did. So more or less everyone on my contact list shows up as "Is this your friend". That was expected. But as time goes more and more of my genuine friends are showing up. People from soccer teams and the likes. And I never even had them on Messenger. I suspect that someone posted a link to our webpage and that FB scanned our guestbook.
Facebook also uses friend-of-friend relationships to guess who you might be friends with. If a dozen people are all mutual friends with each other, it'll consider all of them potential friends of yours, not just the one that had you in their address book.
Are there some races in which you can bet the finishing position of any horse, not just bet on the winner?
Yes... but again, it said that the earthquake changed the mass of the earth.
I think you'd better read it again.
Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has determined that by changing the distribution of the Earth's mass, the earthquake that devastated Japan last Friday should have sped up the Earth's rotation
You missed his point. The earth revolves around the sun once per year; the sun revolves around the earth once per day. The two statements are completely different. They are not two ways of saying the same thing; a year is not the same as a day.
To put the latter statement into a heliocentric frame of reference, you'd have to say that a day is the length of time required for the earth's rotation to carry a point on the earth's surface all the way around its axis and return it back to the same position relative to the sun.
If I go ice skating and start spinning, when I pull my arms in and spin faster i DID NOT change my mass, I redistributed it. I still weigh the exact same amount as did before the maneuver.
So you obviously understand how earthquakes increase the speed of the earth's rotation without changing its mass...
Yep, earthquakes always do this. It's only the really big ones that affect it enough for us to bother talking about, though.
the next "greater evil" (there's always a maximum) becomes... patent laws. Why should I keep them in place?
Patent laws protect you as much as anyone - if little old unheard-of you invents the next iPhone, Apple can't just steal it and crush you with its market share. Inventors will never allow you to destroy the patent process entirely; they have too much invested in the system.
in a "everything in the open" patents acts even more as a hindrance that a promoter for invention, by promoting the individualism over the collaboration effort.
No; human nature does that. The patent system is not the cause; it is only a by-product.
Poole saying that 4chan makes enough to "break even" implies that they make more than that. It's highly unlikely that they make the precise amount required for them to break even. Unless he was lying, his statement probably means they make enough to break even, and then some. How much more may be unknown, but it's probably some non-zero value.
Try the dictionary next time.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data
Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard.
So? They'd just have to move back to "first to invent"... the main problem with it was that it's too hard to figure out who first invented something, which is a problem that doesn't exist in our hypothetical transparent world.
No. 4chan takes $85,000 in ads per year just to break even [imageshack.us].
They're able to break even but they can't make a profit on the ads?
If he has other money, he hasn't let 4chan know.
If I had money, I wouldn't let 4chan know either...