Because some of us really don't care if some droid somewhere is poking around in the text massages in our droids.
And anyone stupid enough to take nude selfies, maybe they need to learn that selfies are neither an art nor an art form? Take a lesson from Mother Nature - clouds leak (it's called rain).
I don't encrypt my phone data because I don't see any benefit for my own use, just more hassles. Just like I don't encrypt my on-disk or on-usb-key data. If/when I come into a situation where I need to, I will, but really, so far that hasn't happened.
But we cannot easily feed 11 billion today. We're hitting the limits of fresh-water availability. Desalination is a solution in SimCity, but the real world is more complicated. And if we DID manage to get to 11 billion, that doesn't fix things, since we'll then be having people predicting the population growing to 20 billion by the end of the 22nd century.
And while economic development might wind up with individual families having fewer kids, that doesn't mean total population goes down. To the contrary, total population goes UP. Just look at the population growth in the last 100 years. We've gone from 1.8 billion to 7 billion. Additionally, with rising per capita demands for more energy-intensive food (meat instead of grain, etc) and more economic participation, the footprint of every individual is greater, so that 7 billion is having a lot more than 4x the impact of 1.8 billion 100 years ago.
We already have had a few pandemics. The Great Plague, the influenza pandemic, and lately we've been lucky that modern techniques have allowed us to keep ahead of the bugs. However, we're already hitting the wall in terms of drug effectiveness, we're already running into shortages of water and that's only going to get worse, and our "green revolution" (where we could feed more and more people with fewer and fewer farmers) is running into problems as well - high energy inputs of fuel and fertilizer, crop monocultures ripe for the picking (pardon the pun) to disease and insects, the uncertainty of weather (the farmer who sees their field unable to produce because of either drought or too much water or hail or a tornado doesn't give a crap if you call it climate change or global warming or whatever - their crop is gone either way)).
The only way we can reach 11 billion for 2100 is if we start making soylent green out of people when they reach 30.
Then they're served with another warrant... one that obliges them to put a back door into either the individual device, or their whole infrastructure. Without informing users that such a warrant has been served.
Then what?
It's like a game of chess where the values of the piece can be unilaterally changed by one side.
I don't ever click on start any more. I have a desktop folder for google (for all their stuff), one for the junk that came with the computer, shortcuts to the gimp, libreoffice, eclipse, android development docs, and a few others, and that's all I need. In the taskbar there's a few browser icons, the screen magnifier icon (bad retinas), the file browser, libreoffice, firefox and chrome, eclipse, a command prompt and a video editor.
YYMV, but for me this is the ideal setup on this laptop.
The laptop next to it is running LXDE on Fedora 20. Conventional menu system, but I'll probably go with the same shortcuts setup on it as well when I get the time and the inclination to simplify things a bit.
So ignore the "windows start" icon. Put shortcuts to your programs on the desktop or the task bar. If you want, you can even go full-on Window 3.0 by creating folders to hold each group of applications (work, games, utilities, system, etc) and giving each folder a unique icon.
We're heading back that way anyways, so might as well embrace it:-)
Anyone who's been here a while knows all this crap is just APK going through my posting history on an hourly basis and attacking me any way he can because I dared to call him the HOSTS file troll (just google "hosts file troll apk" to get a better look). Why? I guess he has issues with transsexuals. Or maybe with all women, but it's just safer to publicly attack transsexuals.
And it's not been a secret that I'm trans since I was outed back in 2006. Nothing to be ashamed of. t's (to slowly get back on topic) now accepted as pretty mainstream. It happens, we see doctors, follow their directions, and live more-or-less normal lives... which last time I looked doesn't include going through others posting history years later because you get all bent out of shape over anyone who dares call your hosts file an obsolete piece of crap. It's not 1990 any more. Things have changed, both in tech and society. Normal isn't that easy to pin down any more.
The attraction of the main characters in BBT isn't that they're different - their concerns are entirely normal. Relationships between the sexes is a good example. While individually they may seem strange, in the aggregate they cover a part of the normal spectrum of hopes and fears. Acceptance, rejection, what next, will I screw it up, why can't they change this ONE teeny thing that annoys me so much... why do they want to change me, if I change will they like me better, do I dare tell them how I feel, now that I've told them, did I screw it up, will I lose them as a friend if I try to take it further, how do I tell them I only like them as a friend?
It doesn't have to be about geeks - you see the same situations played out in police dramas, soap operas, and probably (just guessing here because I've never seen one) reality TV shows. And in our lives and the lives of those around us. Every day. The BBT characters are more normal than we care to admit.
Altruism is only one of several survival strategies. As you point out (quite rightly) there are other survival strategies that work. They exhibit the same traits as parasites or diseases - taking enough to survive and flourish, but not enough to kill the host. If everyone goes all-out exploiter, the species dies out, so the exploiters must never get to the point where they fatally injure the species as a whole.
Unfortunately, for this form of self-regulation to work, exploiters would have to become altruistic, not something they're capable of (the closest is "benign self-interest"). And it also ignores the fact that exploiters DO kill their hosts. And species DO go extinct.
I agree with your ultimate assessment - the future looks bleak. Is there a solution, or will we get lucky? I just don't know. I DO know that altruism does exist. I've certainly done what I felt was the right thing trying to help others knowing that it would probably bite me in the gluteus maximus.
Here we go again. APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer, but now also an expert in the medical treatment of transsexuals. Continually checking my posting history and trying to embarrass me - even though I was outed on slasdot in 2006 to overwhelming community support.
Now, to bring things back on-topic... "Welcome to the new normal!"
Which kind of speaks to my main point - what is considered normal changes with time. 30 years ago, anyone spending their day glued to their phone, typing messages, and going into a panic attack if they can't find their phone would have been considered an ultra-geek nerd. Today, that's your average 13-year-old.
We've gone from "geek chic" to "can't you put that damn thing away for 5 minutes?"
Look at how fast having your own myspace page went from "that's SO neat" to "that's SO sad!".
Same thing with that other ritual, TV watching. 30 years ago, if there was nothing on, there was nothing on. Go find something else to do. Now? If there's nothing on, people will spend the next half hour channel-surfing. And if there's still nothing on, they'll start over, because "maybe now there's something on." This is normal for a large portion of the population, even as it's dysfunctional.
"Normal" is like "pornography" - I may not be able to define it, but I'll know it when I see it. Except even that turns out to be pretty much a case of "in the eye of the beholder." Stuff that was too racy for Playboy at first now adorns bus shelter ads, and nobody really notices, or cares for that matter.
Dr. Bernadette has a PhD, remember? Microbiologist? Seems to have had a history of functioning in conversational and social settings, given here pre-Howard history.
I think you'll find your definition of "normal" to be a bit off. Most people lose functionality when in conversations and social settings where they don't know anyone, for example. They'll hang around the edges, and latch on to someone else who is also hanging around the edges, as "safe". This appears, to a certain extent, to be worse in men than women (and given that people are focusing on the 4 male research characters and forgetting Bernadette, who doesn't share their inhibitions, it seems almost to be "expected").
When I go to the hospital clinic for my retinal exams, blood tests, treatments, etc., I usually end up with a few other women talking about all sorts of stuff. The men? They all look like they're taking the urinal test. Alternating between staring at the floor or the clock or space, afraid to say hello to anyone lest it be misinterpreted, totally miserable.
The "normal" male reaction is less functional (they miss out on the exchange of experiences from other patients with the same doctor or the same condition, for example), and isn't limited to the male researchers in BBT.
If you're stuck with 8.1, here's a quick fix. Open a file browser, and click the Control Panel icon on the ribbon bar.
In Control Panel, click Taskbar and Navigation.
In the dialog, click on the second tab, the one labeled Navigation. Here you can permanently make the desktop, and not the stupid start full-screen Metro UI menu, your default. Just click on "When I sign in or close all apps on a screen, go to the desktop instead of Start." You can also disable the charms, etc.
Quite a few men apparently, judging from the ones who have either hit on me or tried to force themselves on me in the last few years.
Of course, you're too busy mentally masturbating with your stupid HOSTS file to realize that the world has changed in the last few decades. Both your hosts file and your attitude towards the LGBT are woefully inadequate and obsolete, apk.
It reminds me of the joke I heard as a kid.
Little Johnny pulls down his pants and says "Ha ha, I have one of these and you don't."
Little Suzie pulls up her skirt and says "Ha ha, my mommy says that with one of these I can get as many of those as I want!"
He wasn't picking up on my attitude. The guy who eventually went looking for a gun because he hated me? I had previously invited him and two of his relatives into my home, and had NO clue whatsoever as to why my dog was growling at him, and only him. I had pretty much an "open door" policy at the time, and he was one of several people he'd let come in, but not get close to me.
He came in handy when another neighbor tried to "squeeze the Sharmin" and didn't want to take no for an answer. Could have used him in the subway a couple of years ago.
Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn't understand the reasoning behind its actions.
Someone sacrificing their lives by throwing themselves on a grenade to save others doesn't have time to think, never mind understand the reasoning behind their actions. And that's a good thing, because many times we do the right thing because we want to, and then rationalize it later. Altruism is a survival trait for the species.
Just wait a while - Uber will offer a cheaper space taxi. Of course, the boosters might be held together by duct tape, there's no regulations whatsoever, but if it blows up the passengers won't be posting negative reviews, so it's all good, right?
If "words are nothing", as you posit, then free speech, which is composed of words, is also nothing. Ditto for the term "free speech".
Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a license to hurt others, at this impinges on others freedoms, as well as, in some cases, their personal safety. Should people not be held accountable when they lie for profit, in the name of "free speech?" They're free to lie, and free to be punished for it. See the difference?
Should people not be held accountable for inciting hatred or violence towards someone else in the name of "free speech"? They are free to do so, but they again have to accept the consequences of their actions. Free speech is not a "get out of jail free" card.
Free speech, like every other right and freedom, comes with both responsibilities and obligations.
I would bet your dog does not like the ones with anxiety problems.
To the contrary. I have PTSD, and he's been a real lifeline when things have turned pear-shaped. Dogs have helped me hide it for decades, because getting treatment wasn't easy. Now, while I was finally able to successfully get help in the last year, I will always need a dog - which is okay. It's better than the alternative.
Part of the problem is that some schizos ARE dangerous
So are sociopaths and psychopaths. What you are trying to imply is that schizophrenics are more dangerous than other mental disorders.
I never came near implying that. Not once did I mention sociopaths OR psychopaths. To the contrary, I wrote that if this finding lets us tell the dangerous schizos from those who aren't, this will be awesome. My answer presumes that many schizos are not dangerous. I even went further, posing the question of whether a tendency towards violence might still need an environmental trigger.
A real-life example from one of my classmates in high school. Diagnosed as schizophrenic at 8 years of age, his father basically tried to "beat the devil out of him" for the next 8 years. That's akin to pounding on a bomb to see if it's armed. Even if he wasn't dangerous before, this course of conduct almost certainly lead to "arming the bomb." He beat his father to death right in front of me, and I was next on his list. He was found to be not criminally responsible, in part due to my testimony, and having seen and heard what he did that night, I believe the jury got it right.
Does that sound like someone who's unsympathetic to the problem?
Thank you. I certainly believe in free speech - but I also believe that nobody has the right to try to shut me up by outing me to over 100 of my neighbors. That was attacking the messenger instead of the message, and like all such attacks was intended to stifle free speech - in this case, a point-by-point analysis of how what they were doing was blatantly illegal (and the court sided with me and two of my neighbors who didn't cave in to the threats and pressure tactics).
It almost worked too. I was totally unprepared for such garbage - after all, this was a community meeting run under the city's ageis, not slashdot:-) Was I embarrassed to death? You betcha! But rather than run from it, which is as impossible as putting the toothpaste back in the tube, I've chosen to embrace being out. It's the only practical and constructive course of action, so why not?
Now on the question of their right to free speech in outing me... that's a direct conflict with my right to the privacy of my medical records and my private life. Not only that, but purposefully outing someone is recognized as a hate crime here, and for good reason; there are still people who think transsexuals make good targets for violence, since most transsexuals will NOT complain to police. Same as many, if not most, sexual assaults are not reported. You just want the whole damn world to leave you alone in your misery, like a wounded animal. Anything more is threatening, rubbing salt in the wound.
Even the US courts recognize limits to free speech, as in shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It's a balancing act, but gratuitously endangering someone is not really justifiable as a free speech issue.
Dogs have had many more generations of breeding to tailor their responses to us than we have had to them - something like 10x as many generations, since they breed about 10x quicker than humans. So they can read us much better than we can read them - they've self-selected for that ability, since the ones that can read us best know best how to suck up to us and get us to feed and shelter them and pick up their poop. Todays dogs are specialists - and their specialty is humans.
Given this, dogs are probably better judges of people than we are.
Part of the problem is that some schizos ARE dangerous - we just don't know ahead of time who they are. If this lets us tell the two apart, awesome. Of course, there's the problem of false positives, as well as the question of environment (does a tendency to be dangerous still need an environmental trigger to manifest itself)?
Unfortunately, all meds have side effects. It's up to the patient, in consultation with their doctors and therapists, to find the right balance, which can change over time. "I feel fine now, I guess I don't need this anymore" is almost always a lie, but a tempting one.
Helps explain why my dog reacts differently to different people with the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Some he's very friendly with, others he makes it abundantly clear that he wants nothing to do with them - or with them being around me.
Dogs can sense a lot of things we miss - maybe they can pick up something about the dangerous ones that we can't. And yes, one of the ones he kept growling at eventually went looking for a gun. Told my neighbor (who has 3 registered hand guns) that he hated my guts and where could he buy a gun? Stopped a few weeks later after dusk walking around with a holster with what appeared, in the dark, to be a gun. Knees on the ground, hands in the air, the whole bit. Apparently he wasn't happy that I had reported him to Youth Protection for moving back to the neighborhood after he had assured the court he wouldn't be having any more contact with a kid living in the next building.
Seriously, neither of those accounts has been active for more than 2 years - since I went pretty much blind. And I've never been one to mod myself up. No need to. Just like calling you a net-kook isn't libelous when at the time you were crap-flooding my posts because I had insulted your whole "hosts file is teh absolutely bestest thing evah", or did you forget that you're the one who started it all. I attacked the message. You, on the other hand, attacked the messenger. But "organized conspiracy?" Your paranoia is showing.
Now, since I've never written ANYWHERE that you are a pedophile, I have to wonder about your continued insistence on bringing that up. You see me behind every post that attacks your hosts file, your trolling, and you. I wonder how many people you accused of being me while I couldn't see to use a computer the last couple of years.
Now, with your continued derogatory comments wrt transsexuals, I have to revise my opinion. You're not stuck in the '90s, but the '80s - or maybe even the '70s. Attack me all you want for being a transsexual - but remember, IT attracts a disproportionate number of the LGBT, as well as people sympathetic to LGBT. Slashdot isn't Little Green Footballs (or whatever it was called).
So, why am I bothering to respond and "feed the troll?" Well, let's look at this from a "utility" point of view. APK has outed himself as a transphobe. His posts make it obvious he thinks that I should be ashamed to be what I am. I'm not, and others in my situation shouldn't be either. So there is some "utility", some good, that can come out of making it clear his behavior just reflects badly on him, whereas ignoring it completely would tend to make it look like such behavior actually has a chilling effect on the intended target.
Obsessed with me he is. I don't even have to post to get a response from him. As shown earlier, he assumes anyone posting anonymous negative comments against him is me. It's happened before. It will happen again. See my.sig.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Because some of us really don't care if some droid somewhere is poking around in the text massages in our droids.
And anyone stupid enough to take nude selfies, maybe they need to learn that selfies are neither an art nor an art form? Take a lesson from Mother Nature - clouds leak (it's called rain).
I don't encrypt my phone data because I don't see any benefit for my own use, just more hassles. Just like I don't encrypt my on-disk or on-usb-key data. If/when I come into a situation where I need to, I will, but really, so far that hasn't happened.
We could easily feed 11 million today
I sure hope so :-)
But we cannot easily feed 11 billion today. We're hitting the limits of fresh-water availability. Desalination is a solution in SimCity, but the real world is more complicated. And if we DID manage to get to 11 billion, that doesn't fix things, since we'll then be having people predicting the population growing to 20 billion by the end of the 22nd century.
And while economic development might wind up with individual families having fewer kids, that doesn't mean total population goes down. To the contrary, total population goes UP. Just look at the population growth in the last 100 years. We've gone from 1.8 billion to 7 billion. Additionally, with rising per capita demands for more energy-intensive food (meat instead of grain, etc) and more economic participation, the footprint of every individual is greater, so that 7 billion is having a lot more than 4x the impact of 1.8 billion 100 years ago.
We already have had a few pandemics. The Great Plague, the influenza pandemic, and lately we've been lucky that modern techniques have allowed us to keep ahead of the bugs. However, we're already hitting the wall in terms of drug effectiveness, we're already running into shortages of water and that's only going to get worse, and our "green revolution" (where we could feed more and more people with fewer and fewer farmers) is running into problems as well - high energy inputs of fuel and fertilizer, crop monocultures ripe for the picking (pardon the pun) to disease and insects, the uncertainty of weather (the farmer who sees their field unable to produce because of either drought or too much water or hail or a tornado doesn't give a crap if you call it climate change or global warming or whatever - their crop is gone either way)).
The only way we can reach 11 billion for 2100 is if we start making soylent green out of people when they reach 30.
Then they're served with another warrant ... one that obliges them to put a back door into either the individual device, or their whole infrastructure. Without informing users that such a warrant has been served.
Then what?
It's like a game of chess where the values of the piece can be unilaterally changed by one side.
I don't ever click on start any more. I have a desktop folder for google (for all their stuff), one for the junk that came with the computer, shortcuts to the gimp, libreoffice, eclipse, android development docs, and a few others, and that's all I need. In the taskbar there's a few browser icons, the screen magnifier icon (bad retinas), the file browser, libreoffice, firefox and chrome, eclipse, a command prompt and a video editor.
YYMV, but for me this is the ideal setup on this laptop.
The laptop next to it is running LXDE on Fedora 20. Conventional menu system, but I'll probably go with the same shortcuts setup on it as well when I get the time and the inclination to simplify things a bit.
So ignore the "windows start" icon. Put shortcuts to your programs on the desktop or the task bar. If you want, you can even go full-on Window 3.0 by creating folders to hold each group of applications (work, games, utilities, system, etc) and giving each folder a unique icon.
We're heading back that way anyways, so might as well embrace it :-)
Anyone who's been here a while knows all this crap is just APK going through my posting history on an hourly basis and attacking me any way he can because I dared to call him the HOSTS file troll (just google "hosts file troll apk" to get a better look). Why? I guess he has issues with transsexuals. Or maybe with all women, but it's just safer to publicly attack transsexuals.
And it's not been a secret that I'm trans since I was outed back in 2006. Nothing to be ashamed of. t's (to slowly get back on topic) now accepted as pretty mainstream. It happens, we see doctors, follow their directions, and live more-or-less normal lives ... which last time I looked doesn't include going through others posting history years later because you get all bent out of shape over anyone who dares call your hosts file an obsolete piece of crap. It's not 1990 any more. Things have changed, both in tech and society. Normal isn't that easy to pin down any more.
The attraction of the main characters in BBT isn't that they're different - their concerns are entirely normal. Relationships between the sexes is a good example. While individually they may seem strange, in the aggregate they cover a part of the normal spectrum of hopes and fears. Acceptance, rejection, what next, will I screw it up, why can't they change this ONE teeny thing that annoys me so much ... why do they want to change me, if I change will they like me better, do I dare tell them how I feel, now that I've told them, did I screw it up, will I lose them as a friend if I try to take it further, how do I tell them I only like them as a friend?
It doesn't have to be about geeks - you see the same situations played out in police dramas, soap operas, and probably (just guessing here because I've never seen one) reality TV shows. And in our lives and the lives of those around us. Every day. The BBT characters are more normal than we care to admit.
Unfortunately, for this form of self-regulation to work, exploiters would have to become altruistic, not something they're capable of (the closest is "benign self-interest"). And it also ignores the fact that exploiters DO kill their hosts. And species DO go extinct.
I agree with your ultimate assessment - the future looks bleak. Is there a solution, or will we get lucky? I just don't know. I DO know that altruism does exist. I've certainly done what I felt was the right thing trying to help others knowing that it would probably bite me in the gluteus maximus.
Here we go again. APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer, but now also an expert in the medical treatment of transsexuals. Continually checking my posting history and trying to embarrass me - even though I was outed on slasdot in 2006 to overwhelming community support.
Now, to bring things back on-topic ... "Welcome to the new normal!"
Which kind of speaks to my main point - what is considered normal changes with time. 30 years ago, anyone spending their day glued to their phone, typing messages, and going into a panic attack if they can't find their phone would have been considered an ultra-geek nerd. Today, that's your average 13-year-old.
We've gone from "geek chic" to "can't you put that damn thing away for 5 minutes?"
Look at how fast having your own myspace page went from "that's SO neat" to "that's SO sad!".
Same thing with that other ritual, TV watching. 30 years ago, if there was nothing on, there was nothing on. Go find something else to do. Now? If there's nothing on, people will spend the next half hour channel-surfing. And if there's still nothing on, they'll start over, because "maybe now there's something on." This is normal for a large portion of the population, even as it's dysfunctional.
"Normal" is like "pornography" - I may not be able to define it, but I'll know it when I see it. Except even that turns out to be pretty much a case of "in the eye of the beholder." Stuff that was too racy for Playboy at first now adorns bus shelter ads, and nobody really notices, or cares for that matter.
Dr. Bernadette has a PhD, remember? Microbiologist? Seems to have had a history of functioning in conversational and social settings, given here pre-Howard history.
I think you'll find your definition of "normal" to be a bit off. Most people lose functionality when in conversations and social settings where they don't know anyone, for example. They'll hang around the edges, and latch on to someone else who is also hanging around the edges, as "safe". This appears, to a certain extent, to be worse in men than women (and given that people are focusing on the 4 male research characters and forgetting Bernadette, who doesn't share their inhibitions, it seems almost to be "expected").
When I go to the hospital clinic for my retinal exams, blood tests, treatments, etc., I usually end up with a few other women talking about all sorts of stuff. The men? They all look like they're taking the urinal test. Alternating between staring at the floor or the clock or space, afraid to say hello to anyone lest it be misinterpreted, totally miserable.
The "normal" male reaction is less functional (they miss out on the exchange of experiences from other patients with the same doctor or the same condition, for example), and isn't limited to the male researchers in BBT.
How about this: First, define "normal." Put 10 people in a room, you'll get 11 different answers.
Scientific people can be normal people. You can be scientific and play sports. You can be scientific and be popular.
So, to be considered "normal", people should play sports? That's playing up to stereotypes. Kind of unscientific, n'est pas?
What is considered "normal" changes with the time and location.
If you're stuck with 8.1, here's a quick fix. Open a file browser, and click the Control Panel icon on the ribbon bar.
In Control Panel, click Taskbar and Navigation.
In the dialog, click on the second tab, the one labeled Navigation. Here you can permanently make the desktop, and not the stupid start full-screen Metro UI menu, your default. Just click on "When I sign in or close all apps on a screen, go to the desktop instead of Start." You can also disable the charms, etc.
Quite a few men apparently, judging from the ones who have either hit on me or tried to force themselves on me in the last few years.
Of course, you're too busy mentally masturbating with your stupid HOSTS file to realize that the world has changed in the last few decades. Both your hosts file and your attitude towards the LGBT are woefully inadequate and obsolete, apk.
It reminds me of the joke I heard as a kid.
Little Johnny pulls down his pants and says "Ha ha, I have one of these and you don't."
Little Suzie pulls up her skirt and says "Ha ha, my mommy says that with one of these I can get as many of those as I want!"
Jealous much?
Apple is about style and fashion. So why not use photoshop or anorexic phone models? Everybody in fashion does it.
He wasn't picking up on my attitude. The guy who eventually went looking for a gun because he hated me? I had previously invited him and two of his relatives into my home, and had NO clue whatsoever as to why my dog was growling at him, and only him. I had pretty much an "open door" policy at the time, and he was one of several people he'd let come in, but not get close to me.
He came in handy when another neighbor tried to "squeeze the Sharmin" and didn't want to take no for an answer. Could have used him in the subway a couple of years ago.
Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn't understand the reasoning behind its actions.
Someone sacrificing their lives by throwing themselves on a grenade to save others doesn't have time to think, never mind understand the reasoning behind their actions. And that's a good thing, because many times we do the right thing because we want to, and then rationalize it later. Altruism is a survival trait for the species.
Just wait a while - Uber will offer a cheaper space taxi. Of course, the boosters might be held together by duct tape, there's no regulations whatsoever, but if it blows up the passengers won't be posting negative reviews, so it's all good, right?
If "words are nothing", as you posit, then free speech, which is composed of words, is also nothing. Ditto for the term "free speech".
Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a license to hurt others, at this impinges on others freedoms, as well as, in some cases, their personal safety. Should people not be held accountable when they lie for profit, in the name of "free speech?" They're free to lie, and free to be punished for it. See the difference?
Should people not be held accountable for inciting hatred or violence towards someone else in the name of "free speech"? They are free to do so, but they again have to accept the consequences of their actions. Free speech is not a "get out of jail free" card.
Free speech, like every other right and freedom, comes with both responsibilities and obligations.
I would bet your dog does not like the ones with anxiety problems.
To the contrary. I have PTSD, and he's been a real lifeline when things have turned pear-shaped. Dogs have helped me hide it for decades, because getting treatment wasn't easy. Now, while I was finally able to successfully get help in the last year, I will always need a dog - which is okay. It's better than the alternative.
Part of the problem is that some schizos ARE dangerous
So are sociopaths and psychopaths. What you are trying to imply is that schizophrenics are more dangerous than other mental disorders.
I never came near implying that. Not once did I mention sociopaths OR psychopaths. To the contrary, I wrote that if this finding lets us tell the dangerous schizos from those who aren't, this will be awesome. My answer presumes that many schizos are not dangerous. I even went further, posing the question of whether a tendency towards violence might still need an environmental trigger.
A real-life example from one of my classmates in high school. Diagnosed as schizophrenic at 8 years of age, his father basically tried to "beat the devil out of him" for the next 8 years. That's akin to pounding on a bomb to see if it's armed. Even if he wasn't dangerous before, this course of conduct almost certainly lead to "arming the bomb." He beat his father to death right in front of me, and I was next on his list. He was found to be not criminally responsible, in part due to my testimony, and having seen and heard what he did that night, I believe the jury got it right.
Does that sound like someone who's unsympathetic to the problem?
Thank you. I certainly believe in free speech - but I also believe that nobody has the right to try to shut me up by outing me to over 100 of my neighbors. That was attacking the messenger instead of the message, and like all such attacks was intended to stifle free speech - in this case, a point-by-point analysis of how what they were doing was blatantly illegal (and the court sided with me and two of my neighbors who didn't cave in to the threats and pressure tactics).
It almost worked too. I was totally unprepared for such garbage - after all, this was a community meeting run under the city's ageis, not slashdot :-) Was I embarrassed to death? You betcha! But rather than run from it, which is as impossible as putting the toothpaste back in the tube, I've chosen to embrace being out. It's the only practical and constructive course of action, so why not?
Now on the question of their right to free speech in outing me ... that's a direct conflict with my right to the privacy of my medical records and my private life. Not only that, but purposefully outing someone is recognized as a hate crime here, and for good reason; there are still people who think transsexuals make good targets for violence, since most transsexuals will NOT complain to police. Same as many, if not most, sexual assaults are not reported. You just want the whole damn world to leave you alone in your misery, like a wounded animal. Anything more is threatening, rubbing salt in the wound.
Even the US courts recognize limits to free speech, as in shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It's a balancing act, but gratuitously endangering someone is not really justifiable as a free speech issue.
Dogs have had many more generations of breeding to tailor their responses to us than we have had to them - something like 10x as many generations, since they breed about 10x quicker than humans. So they can read us much better than we can read them - they've self-selected for that ability, since the ones that can read us best know best how to suck up to us and get us to feed and shelter them and pick up their poop. Todays dogs are specialists - and their specialty is humans.
Given this, dogs are probably better judges of people than we are.
Part of the problem is that some schizos ARE dangerous - we just don't know ahead of time who they are. If this lets us tell the two apart, awesome. Of course, there's the problem of false positives, as well as the question of environment (does a tendency to be dangerous still need an environmental trigger to manifest itself)?
Unfortunately, all meds have side effects. It's up to the patient, in consultation with their doctors and therapists, to find the right balance, which can change over time. "I feel fine now, I guess I don't need this anymore" is almost always a lie, but a tempting one.
Helps explain why my dog reacts differently to different people with the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Some he's very friendly with, others he makes it abundantly clear that he wants nothing to do with them - or with them being around me.
Dogs can sense a lot of things we miss - maybe they can pick up something about the dangerous ones that we can't. And yes, one of the ones he kept growling at eventually went looking for a gun. Told my neighbor (who has 3 registered hand guns) that he hated my guts and where could he buy a gun? Stopped a few weeks later after dusk walking around with a holster with what appeared, in the dark, to be a gun. Knees on the ground, hands in the air, the whole bit. Apparently he wasn't happy that I had reported him to Youth Protection for moving back to the neighborhood after he had assured the court he wouldn't be having any more contact with a kid living in the next building.
Hi ho, hi ho, time to play whack-the-troll ...
Seriously, neither of those accounts has been active for more than 2 years - since I went pretty much blind. And I've never been one to mod myself up. No need to. Just like calling you a net-kook isn't libelous when at the time you were crap-flooding my posts because I had insulted your whole "hosts file is teh absolutely bestest thing evah", or did you forget that you're the one who started it all. I attacked the message. You, on the other hand, attacked the messenger. But "organized conspiracy?" Your paranoia is showing.
Now, since I've never written ANYWHERE that you are a pedophile, I have to wonder about your continued insistence on bringing that up. You see me behind every post that attacks your hosts file, your trolling, and you. I wonder how many people you accused of being me while I couldn't see to use a computer the last couple of years.
Now, with your continued derogatory comments wrt transsexuals, I have to revise my opinion. You're not stuck in the '90s, but the '80s - or maybe even the '70s. Attack me all you want for being a transsexual - but remember, IT attracts a disproportionate number of the LGBT, as well as people sympathetic to LGBT. Slashdot isn't Little Green Footballs (or whatever it was called).
So, why am I bothering to respond and "feed the troll?" Well, let's look at this from a "utility" point of view. APK has outed himself as a transphobe. His posts make it obvious he thinks that I should be ashamed to be what I am. I'm not, and others in my situation shouldn't be either. So there is some "utility", some good, that can come out of making it clear his behavior just reflects badly on him, whereas ignoring it completely would tend to make it look like such behavior actually has a chilling effect on the intended target.
Obsessed with me he is. I don't even have to post to get a response from him. As shown earlier, he assumes anyone posting anonymous negative comments against him is me. It's happened before. It will happen again. See my .sig. :-)