I just got back from metamod and it was even less intuitive than usual: there were no buttons to click! WTF?
Yeah, I ran into the same problem. No buttons, no way to actually metamoderate.
I hope they take the time to fix quotes on the metamod page because before the change many of the comments appeared dysfunctional on the metamod page until I hit the view context button to see that half of the comment was supposed to be a quote of someone else.
If a similar vein if you don't like people complaining about something, don't read it. Or is taking your own advice, something you're not prepared to do?
Of course, some things, like Fox News, are dangerous to ignore. Fox News spends an inordinate amount of time misinforming people. In a democracy that's actually dangerous. The danger is that the misinformed people may now be willing to support nonsensical and idiotic ideas because they've been told repeatedly that it's the only moral and responsible thing to do. Never mind that the people who own most of the media stand to profit from the misinformation. For example, maybe they'll get millions of dollars from the tax cuts their networks promote. But, really, you shouldn't worry about that, you're definitely not supposed to be looking behind that curtain.
The problem is that your definition of "freedom" is all rights and no responsibilities. In theory that's better, in practice that leads directly to a loss of freedom.
I can see your point, but I don't agree with it. You are conflating different meaning of free, the Free Software Foundation is about freedom, not cost. The cost of using GPL software as an integral part of your own software is allowing other people the same freedom that the GPL granted to you.
So what part of "you have to give your code away if you use ours" isn't telling you what to do with your own code?
The part that says "if". You are offered an opportunity with an associated cost. It is your choice whether to take advantage of the opportunity or not. The fact that you are expected to pay the cost if you take the opportunity does not infringe on your freedom in any way, shape or form.
My impressions was that this "scientist" seems to believe in Lamarkian Evolution, probably because he doesn't have a very good grasp of how evolution actually works.
Once again you are displaying a fundamental inability to understand what other people are telling you.
When murder is committed in the heat of the moment the difficulty is probably the single most important factor because the more difficult it is to kill someone the less likely it will be accomplished before the moment passes.
So no, if someone wants to kill you, most of the time they will not. However, when someone has a loaded gun, they're much more likely to try and more likely to succeed.
Guns are not harmless tools, they are the proverbial double-edged sword. They have few legitimate benefits and many dangers. Limiting the availability and use of guns is a sensible precaution. It helps to ensure that mentally deranged people can't spray hails of gunfire into crowds of people no matter what they believe. What the proper limits are is debatable but there seems to be little doubt that there needs to be limits.
From what I've heard, violent crime decreased at a similar rate at the same time in a number of places where they didn't implement concealed carry laws. The reason being that the violent crime rate in the U.S. has been declining since 1993. You need to be very careful to make sure that reason for the change has been properly isolated.
If someone wants to kill you, they're going to try to kill you. Period.
The fact that a tool makes it "easier" is irrelevant.
That's a fundamentally ignorant argument. It ignores the fact that the difficulty of killing a victim often factors into the decision. Maybe you need to think of it like the economics of murder, in that the higher the barrier to entry, the fewer participants there are in the murder market. If someone really, really, wants you dead, they may try to kill you regardless of the circumstances but a great many murders and attempted murders are committed in the heat of the moment and occur because the victim has not only a motive, but the opportunity. Having a loaded gun means you always have the opportunity.
Sometimes "blaming ideas, guns, TV, or whatever else is a scapegoat", sometimes it's not. It depends on whether any of those were actually a factor or not. Personally, I've been expected a Democratic politician to be targeted for assassination since 2008. The Republican and conservative rhetoric has been pushing beyond the limits of responsible discourse for years.
"Death Panels", "Pallin' around with Terrorists", "Second Amendment Remedies" and the list goes on and on. This type of rhetoric has an effect on people. That should be obvious, it's the reason they use it. But when you ratchet up the levels of fear and hate, you also inevitably ratchet up the levels of violence. The Republican party (and Fox News) is not directly responsible for the actions of this man, but they may be responsible for arming him and pointing him at his victims.
Of course, but that's just one way in which they can use the information. I'm not saying they're evil, I'm saying only the hopelessly naive expect corporations to turn down the opportunity to make more money.
You remain the naive fool. Any company you give your information to will work as best they can to monetize that information. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the obvious and expected result. The officers of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to the corporation to maximize it's profits. Failure to capitalize on the information you provide to them is a failure to serve the corporation's shareholders and is punishable by termination.
The point you can't seem to understand because you're too bust ranting about conspiracy theories and being indignant that the holy Apply has been questioned is that there is no real difference between Apple and Google in this regard. What the $99 per year buys you is no advertising on that service, for now.
It just means they made $99 per year, per user, plus whatever they can make from selling your personal data. Now to be fair, Apple is nowhere near as good at making money off your data as Google is, but they are trying to close that gap.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.
Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and others of the ilk are a new types of charlatan, however, instead of flogging miracle drinks, they now flog miracle policies which will fix everything that's wrong with the country, guaranteed!*.
Maybe I'm particularly cynical today but it seems to me the difference is: Communists pretend the kleptocracy doesn't exist, while libertarians pretend the kleptocracy is good.
You could go on, but the key words are "now.... pulling it due to...". Should have been faster? Yes. But late as it may be they are pulling an ineffective treatment.
That will never happen in homeopathy because based on their standards there are no ineffective treatments just uncooperative patients.
The reasons why the treatment was not pulled for 50 years likely have little to do with science, and a lot more to do with profits and what was best for the manufacturer's profits, but I'm just speculating here.
He's wrong on the amount, but I did hear a nutrition researches say on the radio earlier this year that people tend be about 10% dehydrated (ie, 90% of optimal water level) before they feel thirsty, but performance impacts tend to appear at around 5% dehydrated. So drinking a little more water for most people might be a good idea, and an increase in water levels could explain much of the perceived improvement in condition. Somebody should probably study that.
On the other hand, I never really liked the new BSG at all (I actually prefer the old one, believe or not). The characters in the new BSG were thoroughly unlikeable, the drama was over the top, and they spent way too much time talking and not enough time doing. I was often profoundly bored by the unlikely characters and the attempt to generate constant tension.
I liked Babylon 5 because it captured a more epic feel (not including Season 5 for obvious reasons). It is (plausibly) at the center of events as the Universe (as they know it) is plunged into war. The types of drama feel very different. I think it might be because, frankly, I don't really give a damn about how fictional people feel about the fictional situations they're in. I'm a lot more interested in what they do about them because that's the entertaining part to me.
I'm saddened by the cancellation of SGU. I was finding the show interesting enough to watch, though many of the criticisms that people have about it are correct. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything better to replace it.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence presented, you haven't provided any evidence to show that she "spouts off talking points" and thus there is no reason to conclude that they are from "secret emails" enforcing politically biased coverage.
That can only be true, if the government is inefficient in it's use of money. If the economies of scale outweigh the inefficiencies, the government services can, in fact, cost less than the equivalent free market services. A case in point would be American Health Care, which is a minimum of 50% more expensive than the equivalent health service in any other country. In this cases countries where government plays a large role in health care, may have increased the individual's freedom from work, by decreasing their freedom of choice in health insurance providers.
Similarly, there are a number of bits of legislation which increase the freedom of at least some people. Laws surrounding minimum wages, maximum work hours, overtime pay, and the like are designed to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people and thus increase their freedom.
So there are a number of ways in which the government reduces the amount of time at least some people need to be working.
It's a little bit different there, Mika says she is reading the talking points immediately before she starts reading them.
If you don't understand the difference between that and disguising political propaganda as news as part of an organized campaign of deception, well, there really is no hope for you.
Actually, I didn't leave out any important details, since I was specifically talking about Afghanistan, though, I don't think anyone in Iraq has been killed over Wikileaks either.
You may, however, have left out an important sentence in the paragraph after the one you quoted: "While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government."
Additionally, much of the information in the article you linked is "according to a senior Taliban intelligence officer" and as such it just might be propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
I just got back from metamod and it was even less intuitive than usual: there were no buttons to click! WTF?
Yeah, I ran into the same problem. No buttons, no way to actually metamoderate.
I hope they take the time to fix quotes on the metamod page because before the change many of the comments appeared dysfunctional on the metamod page until I hit the view context button to see that half of the comment was supposed to be a quote of someone else.
What? I was looking forward to Neo waking up, turning to Bill and saying "I just had the most righteous dream!"
If a similar vein if you don't like people complaining about something, don't read it. Or is taking your own advice, something you're not prepared to do?
Of course, some things, like Fox News, are dangerous to ignore. Fox News spends an inordinate amount of time misinforming people. In a democracy that's actually dangerous. The danger is that the misinformed people may now be willing to support nonsensical and idiotic ideas because they've been told repeatedly that it's the only moral and responsible thing to do. Never mind that the people who own most of the media stand to profit from the misinformation. For example, maybe they'll get millions of dollars from the tax cuts their networks promote. But, really, you shouldn't worry about that, you're definitely not supposed to be looking behind that curtain.
The problem is that your definition of "freedom" is all rights and no responsibilities. In theory that's better, in practice that leads directly to a loss of freedom.
I can see your point, but I don't agree with it. You are conflating different meaning of free, the Free Software Foundation is about freedom, not cost. The cost of using GPL software as an integral part of your own software is allowing other people the same freedom that the GPL granted to you.
So what part of "you have to give your code away if you use ours" isn't telling you what to do with your own code?
The part that says "if". You are offered an opportunity with an associated cost. It is your choice whether to take advantage of the opportunity or not. The fact that you are expected to pay the cost if you take the opportunity does not infringe on your freedom in any way, shape or form.
My impressions was that this "scientist" seems to believe in Lamarkian Evolution, probably because he doesn't have a very good grasp of how evolution actually works.
Once again you are displaying a fundamental inability to understand what other people are telling you.
When murder is committed in the heat of the moment the difficulty is probably the single most important factor because the more difficult it is to kill someone the less likely it will be accomplished before the moment passes.
So no, if someone wants to kill you, most of the time they will not. However, when someone has a loaded gun, they're much more likely to try and more likely to succeed.
Guns are not harmless tools, they are the proverbial double-edged sword. They have few legitimate benefits and many dangers. Limiting the availability and use of guns is a sensible precaution. It helps to ensure that mentally deranged people can't spray hails of gunfire into crowds of people no matter what they believe. What the proper limits are is debatable but there seems to be little doubt that there needs to be limits.
From what I've heard, violent crime decreased at a similar rate at the same time in a number of places where they didn't implement concealed carry laws. The reason being that the violent crime rate in the U.S. has been declining since 1993. You need to be very careful to make sure that reason for the change has been properly isolated.
If someone wants to kill you, they're going to try to kill you. Period.
The fact that a tool makes it "easier" is irrelevant.
That's a fundamentally ignorant argument. It ignores the fact that the difficulty of killing a victim often factors into the decision. Maybe you need to think of it like the economics of murder, in that the higher the barrier to entry, the fewer participants there are in the murder market. If someone really, really, wants you dead, they may try to kill you regardless of the circumstances but a great many murders and attempted murders are committed in the heat of the moment and occur because the victim has not only a motive, but the opportunity. Having a loaded gun means you always have the opportunity.
Sometimes "blaming ideas, guns, TV, or whatever else is a scapegoat", sometimes it's not. It depends on whether any of those were actually a factor or not. Personally, I've been expected a Democratic politician to be targeted for assassination since 2008. The Republican and conservative rhetoric has been pushing beyond the limits of responsible discourse for years.
"Death Panels", "Pallin' around with Terrorists", "Second Amendment Remedies" and the list goes on and on. This type of rhetoric has an effect on people. That should be obvious, it's the reason they use it. But when you ratchet up the levels of fear and hate, you also inevitably ratchet up the levels of violence. The Republican party (and Fox News) is not directly responsible for the actions of this man, but they may be responsible for arming him and pointing him at his victims.
Of course, but that's just one way in which they can use the information. I'm not saying they're evil, I'm saying only the hopelessly naive expect corporations to turn down the opportunity to make more money.
You remain the naive fool. Any company you give your information to will work as best they can to monetize that information. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the obvious and expected result. The officers of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to the corporation to maximize it's profits. Failure to capitalize on the information you provide to them is a failure to serve the corporation's shareholders and is punishable by termination.
The point you can't seem to understand because you're too bust ranting about conspiracy theories and being indignant that the holy Apply has been questioned is that there is no real difference between Apple and Google in this regard. What the $99 per year buys you is no advertising on that service, for now.
Expecting more than that is delusion.
You, poor, naive, fool.
It just means they made $99 per year, per user, plus whatever they can make from selling your personal data. Now to be fair, Apple is nowhere near as good at making money off your data as Google is, but they are trying to close that gap.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.
- Wikipedia
Of course when you say "honest, equitable and balanced" the first thing that leaps to mind is evil.
Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and others of the ilk are a new types of charlatan, however, instead of flogging miracle drinks, they now flog miracle policies which will fix everything that's wrong with the country, guaranteed!*.
* Not an actual guarantee.
Maybe I'm particularly cynical today but it seems to me the difference is:
Communists pretend the kleptocracy doesn't exist, while libertarians pretend the kleptocracy is good.
You could go on, but the key words are "now .... pulling it due to ...". Should have been faster? Yes. But late as it may be they are pulling an ineffective treatment.
That will never happen in homeopathy because based on their standards there are no ineffective treatments just uncooperative patients.
The reasons why the treatment was not pulled for 50 years likely have little to do with science, and a lot more to do with profits and what was best for the manufacturer's profits, but I'm just speculating here.
He's wrong on the amount, but I did hear a nutrition researches say on the radio earlier this year that people tend be about 10% dehydrated (ie, 90% of optimal water level) before they feel thirsty, but performance impacts tend to appear at around 5% dehydrated. So drinking a little more water for most people might be a good idea, and an increase in water levels could explain much of the perceived improvement in condition. Somebody should probably study that.
On the other hand, I never really liked the new BSG at all (I actually prefer the old one, believe or not). The characters in the new BSG were thoroughly unlikeable, the drama was over the top, and they spent way too much time talking and not enough time doing. I was often profoundly bored by the unlikely characters and the attempt to generate constant tension.
I liked Babylon 5 because it captured a more epic feel (not including Season 5 for obvious reasons). It is (plausibly) at the center of events as the Universe (as they know it) is plunged into war. The types of drama feel very different. I think it might be because, frankly, I don't really give a damn about how fictional people feel about the fictional situations they're in. I'm a lot more interested in what they do about them because that's the entertaining part to me.
I'm saddened by the cancellation of SGU. I was finding the show interesting enough to watch, though many of the criticisms that people have about it are correct. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything better to replace it.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence presented, you haven't provided any evidence to show that she "spouts off talking points" and thus there is no reason to conclude that they are from "secret emails" enforcing politically biased coverage.
That can only be true, if the government is inefficient in it's use of money. If the economies of scale outweigh the inefficiencies, the government services can, in fact, cost less than the equivalent free market services. A case in point would be American Health Care, which is a minimum of 50% more expensive than the equivalent health service in any other country. In this cases countries where government plays a large role in health care, may have increased the individual's freedom from work, by decreasing their freedom of choice in health insurance providers.
Similarly, there are a number of bits of legislation which increase the freedom of at least some people. Laws surrounding minimum wages, maximum work hours, overtime pay, and the like are designed to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people and thus increase their freedom.
So there are a number of ways in which the government reduces the amount of time at least some people need to be working.
It's a little bit different there, Mika says she is reading the talking points immediately before she starts reading them.
If you don't understand the difference between that and disguising political propaganda as news as part of an organized campaign of deception, well, there really is no hope for you.
Actually, I didn't leave out any important details, since I was specifically talking about Afghanistan, though, I don't think anyone in Iraq has been killed over Wikileaks either.
You may, however, have left out an important sentence in the paragraph after the one you quoted:
"While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government."
Additionally, much of the information in the article you linked is "according to a senior Taliban intelligence officer" and as such it just might be propaganda.
As of the middle of October, even Fox News admits no one has been killed in Aghanistan because of the War Logs.