Oh, that's simple -- just choose the people who can not benefit from misleading others, and ban them from any work for those who do. In any civilized country, there are plenty of universities full of people in those very positions. They even are known to successfully censor each other in what is known to be a peer review process, and peer review usually deals with some very obscure and difficult to judge things.
Not true. Religion is in sharp decline in many first-world countries.
But how much of it is people abandoning religion and how much old believers dying off while public education preventing religion from being passed to the next generation? In US, public education is religion-friendly, and religion is not in a decline at all.
Because most of the time people do not conspire with paid propaganda workers to mislead others just for lulz. So independence and commonly recognized credentials are sufficient. Neither journalists/editors, nor media companies, not the whole population, satisfiy those requirements.
Humans are not "rational", they just don't have an inherent tendency to be irrational. When they have knowledge, they use it to study the unknown, or at least look for relevant knowledge. When all they have is belief and ignorance, they extrapolate their beliefs, creating more and more bizarre superstitions.
The only reasons this crap flies, is that US has uneducated population, so being a superstitious idiot is considered normal.
It's impossible to persuade most of religious people no matter what you do. The only realistic way to get rid of religion is to prevent religious people from infecting the next generation and waiting for the current one to die off.
A day doesn't pass on this site without some asshole presenting a debunked, discredited and obsolete idea (hardware virtualization, non-network-transparent graphics environment, free market, now religion and superstition) as something new and useful, without even presenting an evidence that he is familiar with the reason why it is considered debunked, discredited and obsolete. Leave alone, making an argument against those reasons.
Outsourcing bug fixing from the developers who wrote the code? Do you realize how stupid is that, considering that "debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place" (B. Kernighan), and the only reason why it sometimes succeeds, is that developer recognizes his thought process that produced the bug?
Go, read Universal Declaration of Human Rights. THOSE are actual rights most of mankind believes to be important, yet no government in history managed to implement all of them even at a basic level. There is always picking, choosing and priorities.
Oh, and don't even bother referring to your stupid Bill of Rights, it didn't even keep US from practicing slavery.
OWS is not speech, it's civil disobedience and petitioning the government. Most people still don't even know, what exactly the protesters' demands were. Wikileaks got no benefit from free speech protection, they had to shield themselves from governments and other entities whose information they distributed, by hiding abroad. Copyright infringement, no matter how stretched definition of copyright is used, never was successfully defended as a free speech issue.
I think, my position is just fine with those things.
Pardon, sir, but free speech might just be the most important thing in a democracy. People vote based upon opinions formed from knowledge. If there is no free speech, there is no free dissemination of knowledge.
You mean, paid propaganda, right?
Knowledge is already very easy to conceal -- just make it classified, and outside of freak incidents like Manning/Wikileaks it will never be known or believed by any significant number of people to matter in "democracy". "Free speech" is used in a political process only and entirely for publishing editorials and election advertisements -- the former should better be censored to enforce fact checking, and the latter must be banned and replaced with public-financed election debates and disclosures.
That's bullshit. I originally came to US on B-1 visa, and found an employer that sponsored H-1B. It was in 1993, and I was not on the level of bottom-of-the-barrel people that outsourcing companies love so much, but I was still a recent graduate with a few years of work experience, all of it outside US.
The "US" way creates a public mental health hazard -- people are constantly assaulted with emotionally significant messages that they can not evaluate.
The only reason you think, free speech is so important, is that media promotes it for its own selfish purposes such as advertisement revenue and access to politicians. There are plenty of things that have far greater effect on everyone's life, and they are perceived as insignificant because media doesn't run a continuous propaganda campaign for them.
If you wasted ten hours out of 50000 people's time, it can be reasonably argued that the harm done is comparable to depriving one 20 years old person of the rest of his expected life. Now, applying statistics with estimated number of victims (less than the number of people in the same room as the bomb, so room capacity can be assumed to be the maximum), probability of the real bomb (with no real threat in history, that can be assumed as "first time since the school was founded"), one can determine, how much all this is justified in the worst case scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of frustration -- yes.
With any expectation that it will affect the outcome -- no.
Oh, that's simple -- just choose the people who can not benefit from misleading others, and ban them from any work for those who do. In any civilized country, there are plenty of universities full of people in those very positions. They even are known to successfully censor each other in what is known to be a peer review process, and peer review usually deals with some very obscure and difficult to judge things.
Not true. Religion is in sharp decline in many first-world countries.
But how much of it is people abandoning religion and how much old believers dying off while public education preventing religion from being passed to the next generation? In US, public education is religion-friendly, and religion is not in a decline at all.
That analogy is bullshit, and there are plenty of persistent memes (such as religions, racism) that are completely wrong.
Because most of the time people do not conspire with paid propaganda workers to mislead others just for lulz. So independence and commonly recognized credentials are sufficient. Neither journalists/editors, nor media companies, not the whole population, satisfiy those requirements.
Humans are not "rational", they just don't have an inherent tendency to be irrational. When they have knowledge, they use it to study the unknown, or at least look for relevant knowledge. When all they have is belief and ignorance, they extrapolate their beliefs, creating more and more bizarre superstitions.
The only reasons this crap flies, is that US has uneducated population, so being a superstitious idiot is considered normal.
It's impossible to persuade most of religious people no matter what you do. The only realistic way to get rid of religion is to prevent religious people from infecting the next generation and waiting for the current one to die off.
I use expletives on hardware for the same purpose I argue with people like you -- to announce to others that something should not be trusted.
A day doesn't pass on this site without some asshole presenting a debunked, discredited and obsolete idea (hardware virtualization, non-network-transparent graphics environment, free market, now religion and superstition) as something new and useful, without even presenting an evidence that he is familiar with the reason why it is considered debunked, discredited and obsolete. Leave alone, making an argument against those reasons.
Outsourcing bug fixing from the developers who wrote the code? Do you realize how stupid is that, considering that "debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place" (B. Kernighan), and the only reason why it sometimes succeeds, is that developer recognizes his thought process that produced the bug?
Please, kill all your friends, then yourself.
Go, read Universal Declaration of Human Rights. THOSE are actual rights most of mankind believes to be important, yet no government in history managed to implement all of them even at a basic level. There is always picking, choosing and priorities.
Oh, and don't even bother referring to your stupid Bill of Rights, it didn't even keep US from practicing slavery.
OWS is not speech, it's civil disobedience and petitioning the government. Most people still don't even know, what exactly the protesters' demands were.
Wikileaks got no benefit from free speech protection, they had to shield themselves from governments and other entities whose information they distributed, by hiding abroad.
Copyright infringement, no matter how stretched definition of copyright is used, never was successfully defended as a free speech issue.
I think, my position is just fine with those things.
Anyone other than supposedly-everyone-but-really-no-one.
Who cares about journalists? They can go fuck themselves. The problem is with 100% of population going crazy from dealing with screaming headlines.
Oh yeah, let's expand the use of "free market" bullshit to determine what is true.
Pardon, sir, but free speech might just be the most important thing in a democracy. People vote based upon opinions formed from knowledge. If there is no free speech, there is no free dissemination of knowledge.
You mean, paid propaganda, right?
Knowledge is already very easy to conceal -- just make it classified, and outside of freak incidents like Manning/Wikileaks it will never be known or believed by any significant number of people to matter in "democracy". "Free speech" is used in a political process only and entirely for publishing editorials and election advertisements -- the former should better be censored to enforce fact checking, and the latter must be banned and replaced with public-financed election debates and disclosures.
That's bullshit. I originally came to US on B-1 visa, and found an employer that sponsored H-1B. It was in 1993, and I was not on the level of bottom-of-the-barrel people that outsourcing companies love so much, but I was still a recent graduate with a few years of work experience, all of it outside US.
And what if the truth is something the "interrogator" does not like?
Rah Rah, USA #1!!!!
The "US" way creates a public mental health hazard -- people are constantly assaulted with emotionally significant messages that they can not evaluate.
The only reason you think, free speech is so important, is that media promotes it for its own selfish purposes such as advertisement revenue and access to politicians. There are plenty of things that have far greater effect on everyone's life, and they are perceived as insignificant because media doesn't run a continuous propaganda campaign for them.
If you wasted ten hours out of 50000 people's time, it can be reasonably argued that the harm done is comparable to depriving one 20 years old person of the rest of his expected life. Now, applying statistics with estimated number of victims (less than the number of people in the same room as the bomb, so room capacity can be assumed to be the maximum), probability of the real bomb (with no real threat in history, that can be assumed as "first time since the school was founded"), one can determine, how much all this is justified in the worst case scenario.
Congratulations, you are a moron.
This only works in movies.
It isn't?