What do you mean "functioning"? Does he (or she) have thyroid cancer, inflammation or is it some other disease? Where exactly in Belarus did he live? I-131 can cause thyroid cancer or inflammation by accumulating in thyroid and producing ionizing radiation, however in all other aspects it acts exactly like non-radioactive iodine.
And that's why you will never understand free speech.
If I can't understand it, chances are, most people can't use it, either.
They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there.
Public speech does not work this way. If it's "out there" but no one listens, it has no effect whatsoever.
If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
Even if people could make any reasonable decisions about importance and validity, the sheer amount of speech that results from such freedom, will make it impossible to find anything worthy of being analyzed in such manner in the first place. In reality, people listen to mass media that is forced upon them and does not look outrageously wrong, plus some subset of things they find to be most comfortable to listen to. All other "speakers" just cancel each other in noise -- their attempts to out-shout their opponents end up creating more noise, and make them sound less trustworthy.
You try to claim that it's just Americans, ignorantly.
Only American society forces everyone to compete for power, and ostracizes people for merely not abusing others.
You may not see it, but people have enacted laws in all countries to enforce their dominance on you.
Laws impose society's collective will upon an individual. This may, but usually does not translate into imposing any particular person's will upon the rest of the society -- in its foundation it's the very opposite.
"They must be wiser and better than me." I hear it all the time.
And that may very well be true, at least as applied to a particular area of expertise.
People elect representatives on how much political experience they have. They accept dominance.
No. Dominance is imposed upon people without any input from them. American society does not value a structure based on voluntary delegation of power and authority to the government, it requires personal subjugation of others. This is ironic considering that the former is in the base idea of democracy and republic, and the latter is most likely is a remnant of social order based on slave ownership.
Becoming President is important to a great many people.
And those people should die in a fire. Not because becoming a President actually can allow them to fulfill their fantasy, but because they want what they believe to be unlimited power over fellow humans.
Those that can't become President fall in line and ride the tails of those that do.
US President actually does not have any significant power that he can exercise arbitrarily. Though he usually does not represent the population, he is pretty much controlled by whatever interests are behind him.
However the fact that you, an American, believe that he is an absolute monarch of your country, you envy him for this, and you deride people who do not aspire for such position, shows how disgusting your society's dominant ideology is.
Survival is only relevant as a part of evolutionary process -- to become widespread, a trait must promote survival and reproduction, it can not be developed by a "thought process" or "decision". Animals don't have a culture, only humans do.
You just have absolutely no proof of what you're talking about. I have.
Look up any data on radioactive contamination around Chernobyl, and don't forget to compare giant scary blobs on some of them to naturally occurring ionizing radiation levels at, say, any area with granite.
In surrounding fire stations, radiation detectors alarmed, the state just had them shut off. In france.
Do you realize what is the sensitivity of those detectors?
In France, thyroid doses got up to 600mSv for 1 year children:
Based on what, and in what year? I-131 (the isotope that accumulates in thyroids) has a half-life of 8 days, most long-term contamination was from Cs-134, Cs-137 and Sr-90, and those three have no specific effect on thyroids.
I live near one of the highest of the listed sites, and althrough my thyroid was not affected, i had heavy nose bleeding, Just continue to takl nonsense...
If you had nose bleeding as a result of anything related to ionizing radiation or radioactive contamination, you would be dead in hours. Thyroids would be the least of your problems.
and i have 4 of my friends (also small children at the time) who have had the thyroid removed before being 20.
But did they actually have cancer, or just nuclear paranoia?
No In france, people were told there is no radiation. But there was. A lot. And still, hundreds of thousands of children had thyroid deseases, vomiting, nose bleeding, etc. I am one of them.
If that was the case, you would be long dead by now.
You are talking to a person who not only lived in Gomel when it happened (less than 100km from the power plant) but also performed measurements soon after the disaster, and years later worked in an organization that monitored food and environmental safety in Gomel area.
Any noticeable contamination was directly around the plant and in few spots in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Everywhere else, for all practical purposes, there was no effect whatsoever.
On the contrary. It is mass media which makes freedom of speech lose its value.
There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
More like it's the other way around.
At the time when all those nice ideas about free speech originated, there were few people capable of writing anything in a manner that anyone would bother reading. A person who went to the trouble of writing a book or newsletter about anything relevant to current events will inevitably reach countless readers in various privileged positions in society, if for no reason then because such speech was rare, and people had no other sources of it. Seeing a somewhat well-argued point would convince many people just by virtue being said and included in those people's experience that they would discuss among themselves while opposing point will not get such luxury until expressed by someone else in a similarly convincing manner -- and even then the opponents will have to change an established opinion because writing and dissemination of it would take weeks if not months.
Now there is no shortage of opinions expressed in a readable manner. Mass media has the benefit of being the same "shared experience" -- it reaches multiple people simultaneously so they discuss things in a way framed by mass media's expression. However remove mass media, and all you have is many weak voices, all with their own opinions, having no influence, no mechanism for shared discussion, and no advantage over each other. Anything valuable (from whatever point of view) will just drown there, and eventually a new set of "leaders" will be in the position of "mass media" that drowns out everything else. It's pointless to pretend that such situation accomplishes anything comparable with a small bunch of 18th century philosophers being able to publish their then-revolutionary views.
Machismo is about complying with the idealized image of a "real" man, that is supposed to be common. While misguided, it does not require a person to be in any exclusive position of power.
And how much contamination, do you think, was caused by Chernobyl outside the plant itself, Pripyat city and some swamps for few tens of kilometers around it? There was a massive push to make it into an anti-Soviet (it was still USSR then) talking point, so everywhere from Poland to UK people were told that big bad radiation is everywhere.
Unless they have managed to change laws of physics, a clone of reverse-engineered hardware with software built from scratch is likely to be superior to the original.
Becoming the alpha male is of great importance to humans
No, just Americans.
- and many other species as well.
In other species it's extremely important for survival that most of the herd is not caught up in an endless fight for positions at the top of hierarchy.
My guess is that people are having less children, so they spend less on education, healthcare, and childcare.
1. You will get the same numbers if you count childcare and education cost as a part of child's cost of living instead of parent's. 2. If people indeed had less children on average, population would stop growing.
Also, if people go without healthcare because it's too expensive, its weight gets lower in CPI.
They certainly don't pay any less for health insurance.
No it isn't, because the value of freedom of speech is not measured by how many people you can convince to agree with you.
What other value can it possibly have? Freedom of speech only applies to public speech, so the purpose of freedom of speech is dissemination of ideas, in other words, access to propaganda.
By your logic, freedom of speech is also "worthless" for the unpopular.
If they can't use freedom of speech to make their ideas popular -- of course!
Slashdot Mirror
"Umbilical" is prone to misspelling, I guess.
Where did I deride anyone for not running for Presidency?
Here:
Those that can't become President fall in line and ride the tails of those that do.
That was clearly a derogatory remark.
You can't authorize someone to get information that you don't have access to yourself.
What do you mean "functioning"? Does he (or she) have thyroid cancer, inflammation or is it some other disease? Where exactly in Belarus did he live? I-131 can cause thyroid cancer or inflammation by accumulating in thyroid and producing ionizing radiation, however in all other aspects it acts exactly like non-radioactive iodine.
And that's why you will never understand free speech.
If I can't understand it, chances are, most people can't use it, either.
They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there.
Public speech does not work this way. If it's "out there" but no one listens, it has no effect whatsoever.
If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
Even if people could make any reasonable decisions about importance and validity, the sheer amount of speech that results from such freedom, will make it impossible to find anything worthy of being analyzed in such manner in the first place. In reality, people listen to mass media that is forced upon them and does not look outrageously wrong, plus some subset of things they find to be most comfortable to listen to. All other "speakers" just cancel each other in noise -- their attempts to out-shout their opponents end up creating more noise, and make them sound less trustworthy.
French doctors remove thyroids to cure paranoia?
I don't know if they do, however I know what you definitely won't cure by removing thyroids from anyone in France -- anything related to Chernobyl.
You try to claim that it's just Americans, ignorantly.
Only American society forces everyone to compete for power, and ostracizes people for merely not abusing others.
You may not see it, but people have enacted laws in all countries to enforce their dominance on you.
Laws impose society's collective will upon an individual. This may, but usually does not translate into imposing any particular person's will upon the rest of the society -- in its foundation it's the very opposite.
"They must be wiser and better than me." I hear it all the time.
And that may very well be true, at least as applied to a particular area of expertise.
People elect representatives on how much political experience they have. They accept dominance.
No. Dominance is imposed upon people without any input from them. American society does not value a structure based on voluntary delegation of power and authority to the government, it requires personal subjugation of others. This is ironic considering that the former is in the base idea of democracy and republic, and the latter is most likely is a remnant of social order based on slave ownership.
Becoming President is important to a great many people.
And those people should die in a fire. Not because becoming a President actually can allow them to fulfill their fantasy, but because they want what they believe to be unlimited power over fellow humans.
Those that can't become President fall in line and ride the tails of those that do.
US President actually does not have any significant power that he can exercise arbitrarily. Though he usually does not represent the population, he is pretty much controlled by whatever interests are behind him.
However the fact that you, an American, believe that he is an absolute monarch of your country, you envy him for this, and you deride people who do not aspire for such position, shows how disgusting your society's dominant ideology is.
Survival is only relevant as a part of evolutionary process -- to become widespread, a trait must promote survival and reproduction, it can not be developed by a "thought process" or "decision". Animals don't have a culture, only humans do.
You just have absolutely no proof of what you're talking about. I have.
Look up any data on radioactive contamination around Chernobyl, and don't forget to compare giant scary blobs on some of them to naturally occurring ionizing radiation levels at, say, any area with granite.
In surrounding fire stations, radiation detectors alarmed, the state just had them shut off. In france.
Do you realize what is the sensitivity of those detectors?
In France, thyroid doses got up to 600mSv for 1 year children :
Based on what, and in what year? I-131 (the isotope that accumulates in thyroids) has a half-life of 8 days, most long-term contamination was from Cs-134, Cs-137 and Sr-90, and those three have no specific effect on thyroids.
I live near one of the highest of the listed sites, and althrough my thyroid was not affected, i had heavy nose bleeding,
Just continue to takl nonsense...
If you had nose bleeding as a result of anything related to ionizing radiation or radioactive contamination, you would be dead in hours. Thyroids would be the least of your problems.
and i have 4 of my friends (also small children at the time) who have had the thyroid removed before being 20.
But did they actually have cancer, or just nuclear paranoia?
I never said anything about evolution. Evolution takes more than one generation.
I guess, you missed "in other species" part then.
No
In france, people were told there is no radiation. But there was. A lot. And still, hundreds of thousands of children had thyroid deseases, vomiting, nose bleeding, etc. I am one of them.
If that was the case, you would be long dead by now.
You are talking to a person who not only lived in Gomel when it happened (less than 100km from the power plant) but also performed measurements soon after the disaster, and years later worked in an organization that monitored food and environmental safety in Gomel area.
Any noticeable contamination was directly around the plant and in few spots in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Everywhere else, for all practical purposes, there was no effect whatsoever.
On the contrary. It is mass media which makes freedom of speech lose its value.
There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
More like it's the other way around.
At the time when all those nice ideas about free speech originated, there were few people capable of writing anything in a manner that anyone would bother reading. A person who went to the trouble of writing a book or newsletter about anything relevant to current events will inevitably reach countless readers in various privileged positions in society, if for no reason then because such speech was rare, and people had no other sources of it. Seeing a somewhat well-argued point would convince many people just by virtue being said and included in those people's experience that they would discuss among themselves while opposing point will not get such luxury until expressed by someone else in a similarly convincing manner -- and even then the opponents will have to change an established opinion because writing and dissemination of it would take weeks if not months.
Now there is no shortage of opinions expressed in a readable manner. Mass media has the benefit of being the same "shared experience" -- it reaches multiple people simultaneously so they discuss things in a way framed by mass media's expression. However remove mass media, and all you have is many weak voices, all with their own opinions, having no influence, no mechanism for shared discussion, and no advantage over each other. Anything valuable (from whatever point of view) will just drown there, and eventually a new set of "leaders" will be in the position of "mass media" that drowns out everything else. It's pointless to pretend that such situation accomplishes anything comparable with a small bunch of 18th century philosophers being able to publish their then-revolutionary views.
Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all?
If everyone will ignore them, I would not see a difference as far as public speech is concerned.
Chechnyian nationalists, maybe...?
As far as I know, even when everyone wasn't sick of them yet, they didn't have a nonviolent organization, leave alone a party.
Machismo is about complying with the idealized image of a "real" man, that is supposed to be common. While misguided, it does not require a person to be in any exclusive position of power.
Evolution does not work that way.
And how much contamination, do you think, was caused by Chernobyl outside the plant itself, Pripyat city and some swamps for few tens of kilometers around it?
There was a massive push to make it into an anti-Soviet (it was still USSR then) talking point, so everywhere from Poland to UK people were told that big bad radiation is everywhere.
Unless they have managed to change laws of physics, a clone of reverse-engineered hardware with software built from scratch is likely to be superior to the original.
Was there ever a study that concluded that it is a biological difference?
Becoming the alpha male is of great importance to humans
No, just Americans.
- and many other species as well.
In other species it's extremely important for survival that most of the herd is not caught up in an endless fight for positions at the top of hierarchy.
It's better than betting on horses' immortality.
My guess is that people are having less children, so they spend less on education, healthcare, and childcare.
1. You will get the same numbers if you count childcare and education cost as a part of child's cost of living instead of parent's.
2. If people indeed had less children on average, population would stop growing.
Also, if people go without healthcare because it's too expensive, its weight gets lower in CPI.
They certainly don't pay any less for health insurance.
No it isn't, because the value of freedom of speech is not measured by how many people you can convince to agree with you.
What other value can it possibly have? Freedom of speech only applies to public speech, so the purpose of freedom of speech is dissemination of ideas, in other words, access to propaganda.
By your logic, freedom of speech is also "worthless" for the unpopular.
If they can't use freedom of speech to make their ideas popular -- of course!
Russian nationalists in a province with mostly non-Russian population?
Which other party would you expect to be popular in Chechnya?
1. Communists.
2. Socialists.
3. Nazi and clowns.
4. Randroids.