There's an even bigger difference between inconclusive and a strong positive result. If cell phones caused a huge number of cancers, studies would not be inconclusive.
Cell phones cause so much cancer that... the most widespread studies cant tell whether they cause cancer at all. That is good news for cell phone users.
You might also want to stop being so condescending to ordinary people. People tend to be reasonably good at making purchasing decisions when it matters and when they are spending their own money. They don't need you to be their champion. They can take care of themselves.
When I said "everyone knows marketing is exaggeration at best" I meant everyone. That includes the average person.
That's going to be a big problem for all those people who live below the surface of the water in the Gulf of Mexico. Also for the people who live in boats floating over 5000 feet of water. What are all those people going to do?
All those folks who wanted freedom from slavery just didn't understand the big picture, huh?
Freedom from something harmful, like spam and viruses (to get back on topic a little) is great when you're being harmed.
In fact, the negative freedoms are really the only ones we're entitled to. Free expression is just freedom from someone forcing you to shut up, for example.
The freedom to express yourself is all too often confused with "gimme a government grant" so I can get high and be a sculptor instead of getting a job and being a grownup.
So go ahead and completely ignore the way the John Edwards story was handled. Because ignoring information is the solution when that information doesn't support the way you imagine the world. You have exactly the attitude the newspapers do.
"Uhm, right. Whatever." Indeed. Congrats on that.
It doesn't matter anyway. Mainstream media is never coming back. There's no fight. It's been over for a while now.
Also, congratulations on being a bigot that slurs ordinary Americans in the Tea Parties.
Would the world would come to an end? Would the shadowy anti-privacy forces finally get the last piece of their diabolical puzzle and finish their time machine? Would we get to read yet another story on Slashdot whining about imaginary injuries to our privacy? Would Santa Claus finally have probable cause to cross Jenny Smith's name off his gift list? Would I finally get that beer I've been wanting? Would terriers learn to play bass?
With a tremble in our hearts, the world awaits knowledge of our terrible hypothetical fate. What would it be? What would happen?
editors and publishers by and large swing to the right in likely the same proportion
False.
Go read the first 50 or so "name that party" links and tell me how many right wing editors and publishers are in evidence.
One side decided that "the media is against us!" (see Nixon) and thus begins 40 years of breaking down the credibility of a media that was by-and-large credible.
Yeah, it's Nixon's fault that the media consistently lies and censors the news to suit their partisan ends.
We're at the point now where places like the Boston Globe and NYT do issue retractions and apologies (albeit not on a front page) while TV organizations like Fox almost never do, and private bloggers never do. If bloggers and self-interested media isn't interested in owning up to their mistakes, why should I consider what they say to be correct?
Some news sources sometimes apologize when they're caught reporting falsehoods. Where are the apologies for hiding the truth?
The John Edwards story alone is more than enough to indicate the uselessness of the majority of media. If it were up to major newspapers, John Edwards would be Vice President right now. Good thing we had the National Enquirer to tell us the truth.
Sure the NYT and Washington Post are OK sometimes. But then every couple of days they blatantly betray their readers. Who needs a newspaper that tries to trick readers by printing falsehoods or omitting the truth? And why should anyone consider anything they say as credible?
Other people can't enforce their will on me. They can't arrest me or put me in prison. I deal with other people voluntarily.
The government backs up everything it does with a threat of violence. Obey or you will be fined. Pay the fine or you will be imprisoned. Come to prison or we will force you. Resist and you'll be killed.
Every parking regulation, employment rule, and health rule is backed up by that same threat.
Freedom isn't about using government to force other people to act against their will. Freedom isn't about using government to steal from your neighbors for your benefit.
Enslaving people and threatening people and forcing people and stealing from people has never been freedom.
(Note also that hatred is the tool of power. Hate corporations so it's OK to steal from them, or to force corporate people to do things against their will. Hate people with money so you can steal it. They're not like you and don't deserve the same treatment as common men do.)
Because authority is rarely misused? Even "at the news level"?
The reason the traditional mainstream media are no longer trusted is precisely because they abuse their authority. A simple Google search for name that party illustrates this quite clearly.
I can't believe you're actually arguing against people trying to be better. If you genuinely are arguing that, I sure wouldn't want to be on your team.
Do you give bonuses out to the truly mediocre?
"Sorry Stanley. You scored 5 out of 5 on your review this year. We're only giving out bonuses to people who scored between 2.5 and 3.5. Try to tone down the excellence. You're making the rest of the team feel bad. Work harder, not smarter. Make some mistakes now and then. Give it the old Community College try! Don't win one for the gipper, we'll settle for a tie."
What branch of the government do you work for anyway?
The concept of "liberal" as it was historically known in the year 1800 in the West, or at other times in other countries, or in some random dictionary, or in the fantasy of some asshole on Slashdot who can't be bothered to use the Shift key is NOT THE SAME as the faction of people referred to in the USA in modern times as Liberals. The Liberal faction's belief system rarely includes "liberal" beliefs.
Don't be confused by word definitions. Watch what people do. The "liber" in "liberal" means "free". Does a government takeover of health care, student loans, auto companies, the financial industry, and the energy industry make the people in those industries "free"? Does taxing people make them "free"? Does telling landlords who they have to rent to make the landlords "free"? Does regulating political speech make that speech "free"? Does regulating the amount of wages make people "free"? Does prohibiting smoking make smokers "free"? Does an ever-expanding government with increasing power and tightening control make Americans "free"?
Also, a "living document" is just a document where someone can say it means X one day and Y the next, depending on the particular whim or belief or corrupt interest of the ones in authority that day. The US Constitution has a process to amend it as needed. When you see it referred to as a "living document", the person saying that simply wants to amend it illegitimately, without the consent of the people and contrary to thier will.
Had Obama told us what he would do, he would not have been elected.
If I buy a laptop online and they send me a box of angry bees instead, should I consider the transaction legitimate? Gaining and exercising power under false pretenses is the electoral equivalent of fraud.
Free people have the right to disagree, even when they're wrong on the facts. World history is a long series of massacres and atrocities caused by authority figures. Show me the death toll from free people defying the wisdom of experts. (I'm sure there is one. But Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and all the rest of them throughout history killed far more.)
Freedom is safer, more productive, and simply better for people than authority.
No one is using Clinton or Carter as an excuse for failure though.
Bush is gone. Bringing Bush up all the time to apologize for Obama's failures becomes a weaker and weaker argument every day. And it was really weak to start with.
I don't know what "privative" is supposed to mean in this context.
But upholding an "ethic" that's meaningless to people besides yourself is very self-focused. Jobs and workplaces (which is the topic) are almost always team efforts.
So your ethic may be important to you, but to everyone else on the team, it just means you are failing to do your part. You might as well be failing because you're drunk or playing solitaire. They don't care. All they know is that, when they needed you, you failed them.
When scientists take taxpayers' money, they should expect politics to come with it. If you want to do research without politics involved, pay for it yourself.
So should I be allowed to steal your car every now and then to stir things up?
Why stop at just stealing his car? Can you get 51% of the vote? If you can, you can get elected to government and take as much as you want from anyone you want.
That's the view of most of Slashdot commenters and other shallow, greedy people.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an even bigger difference between inconclusive and a strong positive result. If cell phones caused a huge number of cancers, studies would not be inconclusive.
Please forward us all the news reports from the famine. And the mass poisonings. I'll be holding my breath waiting for them.
Cell phones cause so much cancer that ... the most widespread studies cant tell whether they cause cancer at all. That is good news for cell phone users.
You might also want to stop being so condescending to ordinary people. People tend to be reasonably good at making purchasing decisions when it matters and when they are spending their own money. They don't need you to be their champion. They can take care of themselves.
When I said "everyone knows marketing is exaggeration at best" I meant everyone. That includes the average person.
That's going to be a big problem for all those people who live below the surface of the water in the Gulf of Mexico. Also for the people who live in boats floating over 5000 feet of water. What are all those people going to do?
IMO, Apple is blatantly misrepresenting the iPad as a computer,
You are, in large part, imagining this.
Also, stop taking marketing so seriously. It makes you sound like a fool. Everyone knows that marketing is exaggeration at best.
All those folks who wanted freedom from slavery just didn't understand the big picture, huh?
Freedom from something harmful, like spam and viruses (to get back on topic a little) is great when you're being harmed.
In fact, the negative freedoms are really the only ones we're entitled to. Free expression is just freedom from someone forcing you to shut up, for example.
The freedom to express yourself is all too often confused with "gimme a government grant" so I can get high and be a sculptor instead of getting a job and being a grownup.
So go ahead and completely ignore the way the John Edwards story was handled. Because ignoring information is the solution when that information doesn't support the way you imagine the world. You have exactly the attitude the newspapers do.
"Uhm, right. Whatever." Indeed. Congrats on that.
It doesn't matter anyway. Mainstream media is never coming back. There's no fight. It's been over for a while now.
Also, congratulations on being a bigot that slurs ordinary Americans in the Tea Parties.
Sarah Connor
309 Calder
Los Angeles, CA 91741
Probably not. But it's hardly a cause for alarm either.
Would the world would come to an end?
Would the shadowy anti-privacy forces finally get the last piece of their diabolical puzzle and finish their time machine?
Would we get to read yet another story on Slashdot whining about imaginary injuries to our privacy?
Would Santa Claus finally have probable cause to cross Jenny Smith's name off his gift list?
Would I finally get that beer I've been wanting?
Would terriers learn to play bass?
With a tremble in our hearts, the world awaits knowledge of our terrible hypothetical fate. What would it be? What would happen?
editors and publishers by and large swing to the right in likely the same proportion
False.
Go read the first 50 or so "name that party" links and tell me how many right wing editors and publishers are in evidence.
One side decided that "the media is against us!" (see Nixon) and thus begins 40 years of breaking down the credibility of a media that was by-and-large credible.
Yeah, it's Nixon's fault that the media consistently lies and censors the news to suit their partisan ends.
We're at the point now where places like the Boston Globe and NYT do issue retractions and apologies (albeit not on a front page) while TV organizations like Fox almost never do, and private bloggers never do. If bloggers and self-interested media isn't interested in owning up to their mistakes, why should I consider what they say to be correct?
Some news sources sometimes apologize when they're caught reporting falsehoods. Where are the apologies for hiding the truth?
The John Edwards story alone is more than enough to indicate the uselessness of the majority of media. If it were up to major newspapers, John Edwards would be Vice President right now. Good thing we had the National Enquirer to tell us the truth.
Sure the NYT and Washington Post are OK sometimes. But then every couple of days they blatantly betray their readers. Who needs a newspaper that tries to trick readers by printing falsehoods or omitting the truth? And why should anyone consider anything they say as credible?
Trying to be better was the entire point of my (very short) post. You had complaints and arguments for some reason.
People should try to be themselves, only better.
For example, not missing the point and having a sense of humor are better than missing the point and lacking a sense of humor.
mostly, your freedom is limited by other people.
Other people can't enforce their will on me. They can't arrest me or put me in prison. I deal with other people voluntarily.
The government backs up everything it does with a threat of violence. Obey or you will be fined. Pay the fine or you will be imprisoned. Come to prison or we will force you. Resist and you'll be killed.
Every parking regulation, employment rule, and health rule is backed up by that same threat.
Freedom isn't about using government to force other people to act against their will. Freedom isn't about using government to steal from your neighbors for your benefit.
Enslaving people and threatening people and forcing people and stealing from people has never been freedom.
(Note also that hatred is the tool of power. Hate corporations so it's OK to steal from them, or to force corporate people to do things against their will. Hate people with money so you can steal it. They're not like you and don't deserve the same treatment as common men do.)
Because authority is rarely misused? Even "at the news level"?
The reason the traditional mainstream media are no longer trusted is precisely because they abuse their authority. A simple Google search for name that party illustrates this quite clearly.
I can't believe you're actually arguing against people trying to be better. If you genuinely are arguing that, I sure wouldn't want to be on your team.
Do you give bonuses out to the truly mediocre?
"Sorry Stanley. You scored 5 out of 5 on your review this year. We're only giving out bonuses to people who scored between 2.5 and 3.5. Try to tone down the excellence. You're making the rest of the team feel bad. Work harder, not smarter. Make some mistakes now and then. Give it the old Community College try! Don't win one for the gipper, we'll settle for a tie."
What branch of the government do you work for anyway?
To readers of the parent post:
The concept of "liberal" as it was historically known in the year 1800 in the West, or at other times in other countries, or in some random dictionary, or in the fantasy of some asshole on Slashdot who can't be bothered to use the Shift key is NOT THE SAME as the faction of people referred to in the USA in modern times as Liberals. The Liberal faction's belief system rarely includes "liberal" beliefs.
Don't be confused by word definitions. Watch what people do. The "liber" in "liberal" means "free". Does a government takeover of health care, student loans, auto companies, the financial industry, and the energy industry make the people in those industries "free"? Does taxing people make them "free"? Does telling landlords who they have to rent to make the landlords "free"? Does regulating political speech make that speech "free"? Does regulating the amount of wages make people "free"? Does prohibiting smoking make smokers "free"? Does an ever-expanding government with increasing power and tightening control make Americans "free"?
Also, a "living document" is just a document where someone can say it means X one day and Y the next, depending on the particular whim or belief or corrupt interest of the ones in authority that day. The US Constitution has a process to amend it as needed. When you see it referred to as a "living document", the person saying that simply wants to amend it illegitimately, without the consent of the people and contrary to thier will.
Had Obama told us what he would do, he would not have been elected.
If I buy a laptop online and they send me a box of angry bees instead, should I consider the transaction legitimate? Gaining and exercising power under false pretenses is the electoral equivalent of fraud.
This is an authoritarian complaint.
Free people have the right to disagree, even when they're wrong on the facts. World history is a long series of massacres and atrocities caused by authority figures. Show me the death toll from free people defying the wisdom of experts. (I'm sure there is one. But Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and all the rest of them throughout history killed far more.)
Freedom is safer, more productive, and simply better for people than authority.
No one is using Clinton or Carter as an excuse for failure though.
Bush is gone. Bringing Bush up all the time to apologize for Obama's failures becomes a weaker and weaker argument every day. And it was really weak to start with.
I don't know what "privative" is supposed to mean in this context.
But upholding an "ethic" that's meaningless to people besides yourself is very self-focused. Jobs and workplaces (which is the topic) are almost always team efforts.
So your ethic may be important to you, but to everyone else on the team, it just means you are failing to do your part. You might as well be failing because you're drunk or playing solitaire. They don't care. All they know is that, when they needed you, you failed them.
This is rarely the right choice.
Being yourself is only really good if you're really good.
Trying to be better than yourself is better.
If IPv4 addresses become very expensive, people will just ... switch to IPv6.
Yeah. That's how free markets solve problems, be they black, or any other color.
When scientists take taxpayers' money, they should expect politics to come with it. If you want to do research without politics involved, pay for it yourself.
So should I be allowed to steal your car every now and then to stir things up?
Why stop at just stealing his car? Can you get 51% of the vote? If you can, you can get elected to government and take as much as you want from anyone you want.
That's the view of most of Slashdot commenters and other shallow, greedy people.