Actually, it isn't that it's a conspiracy theory that's the problem.
In fact, that al-Qaida, an international network of terrorists that want to launch jihad against the western world, is responsible for the 9-11 attacks is a conspiracy theory.
The difference is that with the above they don't have to accuse people of being brainwashed in order to get people to accept the theory.
The way I see it, Fox News is fair and balanced, for it's intended audience. Fair and balanced can only meaningfully be identified as that bias which is invisible to you.
But yeah, Micheal Moore is definitely someone who really disturbs me, and when liberals praise this guy I have a hard time taking liberals seriously. At some point liberals need to just speak out on this guy and call him a dumb ass.
It's not what you believe but how you believe it—the problem of religion.
Yet, wouldn't it happen that you point out Fox news because you disagree with their take on the issues?
I'm looking for a conservative to complain about Fox News, and a liberal to complain about Micheal Moore. Until there are, in fact, many of these kinds of people, I'll always be skeptical about the advocacy for objectivity.
You are in a dark forest and encounter a fork in the road. You look down the first path and you see a winding, unending road full of torturous obstacles and a fiery pit of doom. Down the second path is a quick and easy exit from the forest and a familiar roadway home.
Now's the time to determine where this thread on Slashdot will take you. Which path will you choose?
Yet you can't ignore that what apple users love about their macs isn't the mac-in itself, as a piece of technology, but what it signifies. All branding is ultimately a confusion between signifiers and signifieds.
I certainly empathize with the poster you're responding to. Apple has turned computing into a lot of hype and fanboy-love, and you can't trust anything that is said about their products. This happened early on with Linux and open source, and with BeOS and now with Apple. It's stupid, really, and all these fanboys will kick themselves one day when they wake up and realize that a computer is just a computer, and everything else is bullshit.
But, even more so, a computer is what you can do with it. Sitting in front of a Linux machine won't make you a hacker. Sitting in front of a Mac won't turn you into all those cliche's that the commercials are about.
In fact, I'd argue with all the fanboys about this sort of thing. It's a shame to possess a product that is too well-designed, for it hurts the heart to turn it into something new. It's horrible to possess something too aesthetically pleasing, for it becomes a sin to dress it in one's own clothing. I don't want a product, but the parts and pieces of my imagination. I don't want a painting but a canvas to draw on.
When you own a mac, you don't become anything, but you lose quite a bit of yourself. You become another individual with a mac, all the same. The only way to appropriate a mac is to turn it into something that isn't a mac anymore.
Bingo! Most entry-level jobs actually make you stupid, usually because of some sort of mindless authoritarian structure. The boss says to do something stupid and idiotic, because he doesn't really care and hasn't thought it out. The supervisor, fearing for his job and his relationship with the boss, accepts this order without question. The worker asks the supervisor what the point of this procedure is, and all the supervisor can say is just do it; or, in a worst case scenario, the supervisor comes up with some lame rationalization for the procedure.
And, for years afterwards, after the worker, supervisor, and boss have left the company, people are still doing things the same way, all assuming there was some incredibly good reason for doing things just this way.
I don't think it's quite simple. First, you're talking about what "we" want, when there's really no such entity. There's no such thing as a public will either, if that's what you're thinking.
But, secondly, even on the things that people agree on, we can know what we want the outcome to be, and how to get there, but in politics the distance between two points isn't a straight line. To use an analogy, building a house isn't simply a matter of willing or choosing for that to happen. Rather, you have to do a whole bunch of things that you don't want to do, like endure the labor yourself, or sacrifice some of your money to someone else to do it.
And that's sort of the issue with politics. If only you could have your cake and eat it too! You can't just skim the cream off the top of every candidate, or every proposition, and throw out the rest. And I'm not talking cynically. Every candidate is a flawed character, even the one with the noblest desires. Every proposed policy has it's downsides. You can give jobs to thousands only if you put hundreds of people now employed on the streets.
Today, everyone is so upset with the way things are, everyone believes that the country is going the wrong direction. But usually the bitterness is about a handful of small, yet loud, issues that have been blown out of proportion. People are petty and don't look at the big picture. People don't realize that your typical lower class, working person has it better today than most monarch's did during the feudal era. You need to see the big picture. Otherwise you deserve whatever anguish and resentiment you experience due to the state of things.
I'm just sorry that I didn't take the time, pull out an old Coulter book, and quote in a bunch of pieces that I found funny.
But your reasoning, and the reasoning of others who responded to my comment, is ludicrous.
Essentially:
1. This quote, and this quote, and these other quotes that Ann Coulter wrote, aren't funny. 2. Therefore nothing Ann Coulter writes is funny. INVALID
Apparently these quotes that people keep referring to are the only things of Ann Coulter that you all have ever read. Or are you guys just being dishonest?
Although he makes fun of both sides, it is much easier to make fun of the republicans - since their politics (under introspection) aren't very good. All he does is bring it to the front.
It's sad that people actually interpret the situation this way, no matter what you think "introspection" means. It has been easier to make fun of republicans because, for the most part, they've been the ones in power for the last 8 years. That's what Jon Stewardt has been saying forever now, and I'm sure Colbert is in the same line of thinking but you never see him talk out of character.
I think left-leaning politos should put a check on themselves with their self-indulgent tripe.
Lets be clear: humor is most often, but not always, about laughing at absurdities. Now, what a person happens to consider absurd depends on what they've been accultured to. Liberals, suprise suprise, simply have different standards on what they consider absurd and normal than conservatives. Trust me, conservatives have their moments when they can be funny also. The sad thing is when someone from one side simply can't find any humor in the jokes of the other side. Liberals: Just so you know, Ann Coulter is funny! And I don't even mean in that overly sarcastic way you mean it.
And the first one to assume I'm a conservative/Republican is a doofus.
I just wanted to add, in case you fear I'm trolling you, that I think I do have a substantial point.
The problem is that usually when I hear about fear of genetically modified crops, it's because people believe those crops are unnatural, or are artificial, and that because human beings were so involved in the process of producing those plants at the genetic level that there must be something wrong with them.
But, of course, "natural" food isn't any different from GM food other than the fact that human beings were involved in their development. Natural foods can be toxic and poisonous, as anyone who has eaten one of those red berries from the berry bush can test. It's just an old, deep prejudice against anything produced by human beings.
What you are talking about, however, isn't about GM crops, per se, but about the business practices of one of the companies involved with GM crops. The error, however, is that this is your reasoning:
1. There are companies like Monsanto involved in GM food production and this company shouldn't be trusted. 2. Therefore, GM food production shouldn't be trusted. INVALID
It's an invalid inference and, as an educated person, you should know this. But it's not like even educated people are fool proof, so consider this friendly advice. I suspect that you've bought into the GM hysteria and have come up with your own rationalization of that hysteria.
The problem is that your claim to be educated is negated by your expression of paranoia. I suggest that the reason GM crops scare you shitless isn't due to your education but due to your paranoia.
Now, what does your education tell you about GM crops?
Trouble is - kings breed kings, and sooner or later your philosopher-kingdom is a tyranny. Even if you can rule that out, power corrupts and nobody is incorruptible. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. Philosopher kings become tyrants given enough time.
I just thought I'd mention that this is exactly Plato's original conception. Philosopher-kingdom eventually degrades into tyranny. The only thing, as Plato was careful to note, was that it degrades into democracy as the final stage prior to tyranny.
Hypocrisy, yes. But I don't think that word stings them as much as it does you. Perhaps you're one of the naive people that the grandparent is talking about:)
And to top it all off, the NZ police force were interested in talking to the hacker about working for them, and 'several computer programming companies' were also chasing him for his skillz.
My interpretation was that "money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, counterfeiting, and conspiracy" is just the way the law interprets a viable alternative currency within US jurisdiction. For instance, mailing Liberty Dollars instead of US Dollars would be considered mail fraud for a legal system that sees Liberty Dollars as illegitimate.
But your interpretation works too. I'd have to research the matter more to decipher it. Thanks for your reply.
But note, by alternative currency, I don't necessarily mean a local currency, but as a competitor to the US dollar.
Lets just say that I think it can be done, but not violently, with weapons, etc. Rather, you'd need to overthrow the foundation of our current government, which means our economy. I'm suggesting the use of alternate currencies, which I realize is illegal. But if revolutionaries want to have a shot in the dark of causing major changes, then they're going to need economic support, and working with the US dollar is just making them a part of the system they're trying to overthrow.
As far as implementation, I'm sure it's possible to have something like a freenet bank where accounts can be verified, so there's only a limited amount of currency in the system, and then you'd need alternative markets that support the currency.
In my opinion, it's completely ethical, just illegal, but I guarantee you: they'll attack first.
Therefore instead of getting someone who minced words on FISA, and ended up voting unhappily for it, we're going to get someone who is enthusiastic for it.
I have a question. What's the equivalent of the term "fanboy" but for political candidates? I mean, if he was so unhappy about it, why did he vote for it? And whatever excuse you can come up with just shows that he's not the one who should become President.
And the same reasoning will apply to my vote. I'm not so afraid of McCain winning that I'm going to unhappily vote for Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it isn't that it's a conspiracy theory that's the problem.
In fact, that al-Qaida, an international network of terrorists that want to launch jihad against the western world, is responsible for the 9-11 attacks is a conspiracy theory.
The difference is that with the above they don't have to accuse people of being brainwashed in order to get people to accept the theory.
It's said that if you want to be happy, be a gardener.
There, fixed that for ya.
The way I see it, Fox News is fair and balanced, for it's intended audience. Fair and balanced can only meaningfully be identified as that bias which is invisible to you.
But yeah, Micheal Moore is definitely someone who really disturbs me, and when liberals praise this guy I have a hard time taking liberals seriously. At some point liberals need to just speak out on this guy and call him a dumb ass.
It's not what you believe but how you believe it—the problem of religion.
Yet, wouldn't it happen that you point out Fox news because you disagree with their take on the issues?
I'm looking for a conservative to complain about Fox News, and a liberal to complain about Micheal Moore. Until there are, in fact, many of these kinds of people, I'll always be skeptical about the advocacy for objectivity.
You are in a dark forest and encounter a fork in the road. You look down the first path and you see a winding, unending road full of torturous obstacles and a fiery pit of doom. Down the second path is a quick and easy exit from the forest and a familiar roadway home.
Now's the time to determine where this thread on Slashdot will take you. Which path will you choose?
[F]irst Path or [S]econd Path? _
And stay off the chans.
Yet you can't ignore that what apple users love about their macs isn't the mac-in itself, as a piece of technology, but what it signifies. All branding is ultimately a confusion between signifiers and signifieds.
I certainly empathize with the poster you're responding to. Apple has turned computing into a lot of hype and fanboy-love, and you can't trust anything that is said about their products. This happened early on with Linux and open source, and with BeOS and now with Apple. It's stupid, really, and all these fanboys will kick themselves one day when they wake up and realize that a computer is just a computer, and everything else is bullshit.
But, even more so, a computer is what you can do with it. Sitting in front of a Linux machine won't make you a hacker. Sitting in front of a Mac won't turn you into all those cliche's that the commercials are about.
In fact, I'd argue with all the fanboys about this sort of thing. It's a shame to possess a product that is too well-designed, for it hurts the heart to turn it into something new. It's horrible to possess something too aesthetically pleasing, for it becomes a sin to dress it in one's own clothing. I don't want a product, but the parts and pieces of my imagination. I don't want a painting but a canvas to draw on.
When you own a mac, you don't become anything, but you lose quite a bit of yourself. You become another individual with a mac, all the same. The only way to appropriate a mac is to turn it into something that isn't a mac anymore.
So will this study signify renewed interest in the dissection of magpie brains?
I think I'm starting to understand why they're finding so few species who can pass the mark mirror test.
You know, I could go for a car analogy right about now.
Bingo! Most entry-level jobs actually make you stupid, usually because of some sort of mindless authoritarian structure. The boss says to do something stupid and idiotic, because he doesn't really care and hasn't thought it out. The supervisor, fearing for his job and his relationship with the boss, accepts this order without question. The worker asks the supervisor what the point of this procedure is, and all the supervisor can say is just do it; or, in a worst case scenario, the supervisor comes up with some lame rationalization for the procedure.
And, for years afterwards, after the worker, supervisor, and boss have left the company, people are still doing things the same way, all assuming there was some incredibly good reason for doing things just this way.
You happen to be correct. It is called bulverism:
Bulverism
I don't think it's quite simple. First, you're talking about what "we" want, when there's really no such entity. There's no such thing as a public will either, if that's what you're thinking.
But, secondly, even on the things that people agree on, we can know what we want the outcome to be, and how to get there, but in politics the distance between two points isn't a straight line. To use an analogy, building a house isn't simply a matter of willing or choosing for that to happen. Rather, you have to do a whole bunch of things that you don't want to do, like endure the labor yourself, or sacrifice some of your money to someone else to do it.
And that's sort of the issue with politics. If only you could have your cake and eat it too! You can't just skim the cream off the top of every candidate, or every proposition, and throw out the rest. And I'm not talking cynically. Every candidate is a flawed character, even the one with the noblest desires. Every proposed policy has it's downsides. You can give jobs to thousands only if you put hundreds of people now employed on the streets.
Today, everyone is so upset with the way things are, everyone believes that the country is going the wrong direction. But usually the bitterness is about a handful of small, yet loud, issues that have been blown out of proportion. People are petty and don't look at the big picture. People don't realize that your typical lower class, working person has it better today than most monarch's did during the feudal era. You need to see the big picture. Otherwise you deserve whatever anguish and resentiment you experience due to the state of things.
I'm just sorry that I didn't take the time, pull out an old Coulter book, and quote in a bunch of pieces that I found funny.
But your reasoning, and the reasoning of others who responded to my comment, is ludicrous.
Essentially:
1. This quote, and this quote, and these other quotes that Ann Coulter wrote, aren't funny.
2. Therefore nothing Ann Coulter writes is funny. INVALID
Apparently these quotes that people keep referring to are the only things of Ann Coulter that you all have ever read. Or are you guys just being dishonest?
Although he makes fun of both sides, it is much easier to make fun of the republicans - since their politics (under introspection) aren't very good. All he does is bring it to the front.
It's sad that people actually interpret the situation this way, no matter what you think "introspection" means. It has been easier to make fun of republicans because, for the most part, they've been the ones in power for the last 8 years. That's what Jon Stewardt has been saying forever now, and I'm sure Colbert is in the same line of thinking but you never see him talk out of character.
I think left-leaning politos should put a check on themselves with their self-indulgent tripe.
Lets be clear: humor is most often, but not always, about laughing at absurdities. Now, what a person happens to consider absurd depends on what they've been accultured to. Liberals, suprise suprise, simply have different standards on what they consider absurd and normal than conservatives. Trust me, conservatives have their moments when they can be funny also. The sad thing is when someone from one side simply can't find any humor in the jokes of the other side. Liberals: Just so you know, Ann Coulter is funny! And I don't even mean in that overly sarcastic way you mean it.
And the first one to assume I'm a conservative/Republican is a doofus.
I just wanted to add, in case you fear I'm trolling you, that I think I do have a substantial point.
The problem is that usually when I hear about fear of genetically modified crops, it's because people believe those crops are unnatural, or are artificial, and that because human beings were so involved in the process of producing those plants at the genetic level that there must be something wrong with them.
But, of course, "natural" food isn't any different from GM food other than the fact that human beings were involved in their development. Natural foods can be toxic and poisonous, as anyone who has eaten one of those red berries from the berry bush can test. It's just an old, deep prejudice against anything produced by human beings.
What you are talking about, however, isn't about GM crops, per se, but about the business practices of one of the companies involved with GM crops. The error, however, is that this is your reasoning:
1. There are companies like Monsanto involved in GM food production and this company shouldn't be trusted.
2. Therefore, GM food production shouldn't be trusted. INVALID
It's an invalid inference and, as an educated person, you should know this. But it's not like even educated people are fool proof, so consider this friendly advice. I suspect that you've bought into the GM hysteria and have come up with your own rationalization of that hysteria.
I suggest you question the hysteria.
The problem is that your claim to be educated is negated by your expression of paranoia. I suggest that the reason GM crops scare you shitless isn't due to your education but due to your paranoia.
Now, what does your education tell you about GM crops?
Trouble is - kings breed kings, and sooner or later your philosopher-kingdom is a tyranny. Even if you can rule that out, power corrupts and nobody is incorruptible. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. Philosopher kings become tyrants given enough time.
I just thought I'd mention that this is exactly Plato's original conception. Philosopher-kingdom eventually degrades into tyranny. The only thing, as Plato was careful to note, was that it degrades into democracy as the final stage prior to tyranny.
How can voters be informed when the media aren't?
Education!
Hypocrisy, yes. But I don't think that word stings them as much as it does you. Perhaps you're one of the naive people that the grandparent is talking about :)
Right. Absence of evidence is evidence of guilt. Gotcha.
By the way, stop torturing illegal immigrants. It's not right.
And to top it all off, the NZ police force were interested in talking to the hacker about working for them, and 'several computer programming companies' were also chasing him for his skillz.
There, fixed that for ya.
My interpretation was that "money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, counterfeiting, and conspiracy" is just the way the law interprets a viable alternative currency within US jurisdiction. For instance, mailing Liberty Dollars instead of US Dollars would be considered mail fraud for a legal system that sees Liberty Dollars as illegitimate.
But your interpretation works too. I'd have to research the matter more to decipher it. Thanks for your reply.
But note, by alternative currency, I don't necessarily mean a local currency, but as a competitor to the US dollar.
Then why did these guys get raided?
Lets just say that I think it can be done, but not violently, with weapons, etc. Rather, you'd need to overthrow the foundation of our current government, which means our economy. I'm suggesting the use of alternate currencies, which I realize is illegal. But if revolutionaries want to have a shot in the dark of causing major changes, then they're going to need economic support, and working with the US dollar is just making them a part of the system they're trying to overthrow.
As far as implementation, I'm sure it's possible to have something like a freenet bank where accounts can be verified, so there's only a limited amount of currency in the system, and then you'd need alternative markets that support the currency.
In my opinion, it's completely ethical, just illegal, but I guarantee you: they'll attack first.
Therefore instead of getting someone who minced words on FISA, and ended up voting unhappily for it, we're going to get someone who is enthusiastic for it.
I have a question. What's the equivalent of the term "fanboy" but for political candidates? I mean, if he was so unhappy about it, why did he vote for it? And whatever excuse you can come up with just shows that he's not the one who should become President.
And the same reasoning will apply to my vote. I'm not so afraid of McCain winning that I'm going to unhappily vote for Obama.
The line has to be drawn.