Censorship is when the government kills a story. Irks me when/. uses 'censorship' and its the wrong word. Actually, it irks you when it is used correctly.
You have taken a specialty use of the term to be it's one true meaning. Crack open a dictionary, you'll learn a few things.
the United States as a renegade land mine loving country, it fails to mention that while we didn't sign the Ottawa treaty, we are a signatory to the land mine portion of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. And you only sell mines to countries that play by those rules?
I see no evidence that the 9-11 conspiracy theory has been "censored." US celebrities like Rosie O'Donnel and Sean Penn bring this one up all the time. discredit Pronunciation: (")dis-'kre-d&t Function: transitive verb 1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : DISBELIEVE 2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of
Rosie O'Donnel is a fat tub of stupid. Any theory she ascribes to sounds dubious by association.
It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used. Find me a credible source for that definition. I warn you though, it's not what the word actually means, so you'll have a hard time finding one that isn't from some random nut. You might want to accept that you have misunderstood what censorship is, after a few dictionaries tell you you're wrong.
Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm). [...] Somebody call Websters. Main Entry: censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring Listen to the pronunciation of censoring \sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\ Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ;
Now what? You admit you're completely wrong, or you plow on ahead?
The SIMPLEST explaination is that jetliners slamming into the towers and the resulting fire caused the collapse. Except that fire has never before or since caused the collapse of a steel-structure building. And the third building to fall that day collapsed in it's own footprint, which no building has ever done spontaneously before or since.
But we are to believe that the laws of physics were suspended that day? Congratulations on turning Occam's razor into a logical fallacy: The simplest explanation is not always the truth.
Yup...lost me there too. The whole thing stinks of conspiracy theorists. The official 9-11 story IS a conspiracy theory: # a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act # a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) # a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Not that anyone here would RTFA anyways, but when I saw this I knew it wasn't worth my time. Because the official story is obviously the Truth and to challenge it is apocryphal?
If I even tried to explain net neutrality to my parents, they'd simply shake their heads and ask why we couldn't just get along. Tell them that without it, regional internet monopolies can charge them more for their email to get to their recipients now, rather than later.
Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. Shortly after the FDA soft-drink approval, Searle began test marketing, and complaints began to arrive at the FDA -- of such reactions as dizziness, blurred vision, headaches, and seizures. The complaints were more serious than the agency had ever received on any food additive, At the same time, scientists began looking more closely at this manufactured chemical sweeetner.
In 1985, the FDA asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to review the first 650 complaints (there are now over 10,000). CDC found that the symptoms in approximately 25% of the complainants had stopped and then restarted, corresponding with their having stopped and then restarted, either purposely or by accident, aspartame consumption.
The CDC also identified several specific subjects whose symptoms stopped and started as they stopped and started consuming aspartame. The FDA discounted the report. The day the FDA released the CDC report, Pepsi Cola -- having obained an advance copy -- announced its switch to aspartame with a worldwide media blitz.
Former White House Chief of Staff Rumsfeld owed a debt of gratitude to former White House confidante and Rumsfeld friend Donald Kendal, Pepsi's chairman. The Pepsi announcement and aggressive marketing (millions of gumballs, a red and white swirl, tough contracts) made NutraSweet known in every home.
From 1985 to 1995, researchers did about 400 aspartame studies. They were divided almost evenly between those that gave assurances and those that raised questions about the sweetener. Most instructively, Searle paid for 100% of those finding no problem. All studies paid for by non-industry sources raised questions.
I drink or eat anything I want to, and none if it ever gives me headaches or causes any other physical problems. I honestly don't know what is up with all of the people who claim sensitivity to this or that or the other thing. I guess it's really true and I feel bad for you. But the insinuation that these chemicals are damaging and cause problems for everyone, is false. In fact I would venture a guess that the people who have bad experiences with these substances are very much in the minority It is not false. Your threshold for noticing the effect is simply higher.
The canary in the mine dies... do you stay down because you feel fine, or do you take notice?
worry about being above the FDA guidelines. Now, yes, of course, it's possible that the FDA data is out of date. Yes, it's possible that there hasn't been enough study and maybe the acceptable levels of sodium benzoate need to be adjusted. Have you considered that the FDA is corrupt?
(3) "But Intelligent Design is different than Biblical Creationism! It's a purely scientific alternative theory."
Don't try to pretend that "Intelligent Design" is somehow different than creationism. Especially don't try to pretend that it's a scientific theory. Seriously. No one's buying it. "Intelligent Design" is a disguise- a secular-sounding term thrown over religious creationism to try to smuggle it into a state-funded science classroom.
Hello. I'm a creationist, and I read Slashdot. My field of expertise is computing, but I also have a graduate degree in philosophy which included "philosophy of science", and I like a good argument. I would like to address point #3 briefly.
In your first paragraph (of point #3) you point out a strong correlation between belief in intelligent design and certain religious views. You are appealing to the prevailing Slashdot bias against organised religion when you do this
First of all, I find your use of the word "briefly" patently offensive: Your post is one of the longest in the thread.
Secondly, your long-winded philosophical bullshit on the "slashdot bias" against organized religion ignores the fact the GP wasn't expressing a bias, he was responding to a false claim that Intelligent design is science, a scam to sneak creationism past the separation of church and state.
Finally, you got modded up for that bullshit, proving that there is a bias FOR the view you cast in a light of oppression, not against it.
This museum represents a direct attack on science.
Disney has several theme parks around the world that feature furries and princesses. Do you feel that those threaten science as well? 1- They aren't calling them museums. 2- They have exhibits that teach science.
Is it censorship if the mass media ignores it, or does it show that their viewing public don't care? Is journalism a political power or just an advertising delivery business?
The worst part is that he actually got airtime to say this complete fabrication on national television That was on FOXnews. What else are they gonna air?
Actually, if they offer it in a format that doesn't need to be cracked, then yes, I would consider paying more for that. You're still waiting for your flying car, aren't you? You're gonna be paying more for a DRM scheme that allows a limited number of copies, IF all your gear is "trusted" and expensive, of course. They have been consistent in their efforts: they want control.
As for the fear of tracking political opponents or any other abuse of CCTV power, why throw the baby out with the bath-water and ban something as useful as CCTV over fears it'll be misused, instead of making sure there are legal protections in place to stop such powers being abused? We've done it with entering people's houses (which is clearly a FAR more dangerous prospect than simply videoing someone in public, as that takes place in someone's PRIVATE home), arresting people, confiscation of private property, police violence, and searches in cars and of persons in the street, etc. They all continue, but we do everything we can to make sure they're done legally and in a way no-one would find offensive, as to simply ban them because they *could* be mis-used is clearly illogical and doomed to prevent law-enforcement from working. These things all have something in common: You'll know when it happens to you. With the CCTV + credit + wiretaps + packet sniffing + etc, you don't.
Sure, you trust your government with this now. Will you trust the government in 10 years with this tool?
Think about that before you open Pandora's mysterious package.
I would think that most people would not commit the crime if they new they could be readily ID'ed and tracked down after the event. Those are the same people who don't commit crimes if there's witnesses, or the possibility of witnesses.
The people who are in the habit of getting away with crimes know to look for a blind spot to hide in. They'll get comfy and get caught eventually, but they'll have a lot of crimes under their belt before then. Crime is a social problem, and you can't solve a social problem with a technical solution.
I can't conceive of a way even the richest of men could "silence any dissenting viewpoint from his" in a free country. What would the man do, buy my kitchen so I can't say what I want there? You could still say it in your kitchen, where no one will hear you. If you get blackballed from every media, then you are effectively silent.
Slashdot Mirror
Irks me when
You have taken a specialty use of the term to be it's one true meaning. Crack open a dictionary, you'll learn a few things.
Pronunciation: (")dis-'kre-d&t
Function: transitive verb
1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : DISBELIEVE
2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of
Rosie O'Donnel is a fat tub of stupid. Any theory she ascribes to sounds dubious by association.
I warn you though, it's not what the word actually means, so you'll have a hard time finding one that isn't from some random nut. You might want to accept that you have misunderstood what censorship is, after a few dictionaries tell you you're wrong.
[...]
Somebody call Websters. Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring Listen to the pronunciation of censoring \sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ;
Now what? You admit you're completely wrong, or you plow on ahead?
Good BBC video on youTube.
And the third building to fall that day collapsed in it's own footprint, which no building has ever done spontaneously before or since.
But we are to believe that the laws of physics were suspended that day?
Congratulations on turning Occam's razor into a logical fallacy: The simplest explanation is not always the truth.
# a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
# a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
# a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
In fact it is prescribed to everyone suffering from a headache.
You got any other stupid lies you wanna spout to ridicule the health problems of other people?
In 1985, the FDA asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to review the first 650 complaints (there are now over 10,000). CDC found that the symptoms in approximately 25% of the complainants had stopped and then restarted, corresponding with their having stopped and then restarted, either purposely or by accident, aspartame consumption.
The CDC also identified several specific subjects whose symptoms stopped and started as they stopped and started consuming aspartame. The FDA discounted the report. The day the FDA released the CDC report, Pepsi Cola -- having obained an advance copy -- announced its switch to aspartame with a worldwide media blitz.
Former White House Chief of Staff Rumsfeld owed a debt of gratitude to former White House confidante and Rumsfeld friend Donald Kendal, Pepsi's chairman. The Pepsi announcement and aggressive marketing (millions of gumballs, a red and white swirl, tough contracts) made NutraSweet known in every home.
At the same time, according to data released in 1995, human brain tumors like those in the animal studies rose 10% and previously benign tumors turned virulent. Searle and FDA's deputy commissioner said the data posed no problem. Two years later this same FDA official became vice president of
clinical research for Searle.
From 1985 to 1995, researchers did about 400 aspartame studies. They were divided almost evenly between those that gave assurances and those that raised questions about the sweetener. Most instructively, Searle paid for 100% of those finding no problem. All studies paid for by non-industry sources raised questions.
The canary in the mine dies... do you stay down because you feel fine, or do you take notice?
Now, yes, of course, it's possible that the FDA data is out of date. Yes, it's possible that there hasn't been enough study and maybe the acceptable levels of sodium benzoate need to be adjusted. Have you considered that the FDA is corrupt?
Don't try to pretend that "Intelligent Design" is somehow different than creationism. Especially don't try to pretend that it's a scientific theory. Seriously. No one's buying it. "Intelligent Design" is a disguise- a secular-sounding term thrown over religious creationism to try to smuggle it into a state-funded science classroom.
Hello. I'm a creationist, and I read Slashdot. My field of expertise is computing, but I also have a graduate degree in philosophy which included "philosophy of science", and I like a good argument. I would like to address point #3 briefly.
In your first paragraph (of point #3) you point out a strong correlation between belief in intelligent design and certain religious views. You are appealing to the prevailing Slashdot bias against organised religion when you do this
First of all, I find your use of the word "briefly" patently offensive: Your post is one of the longest in the thread.Secondly, your long-winded philosophical bullshit on the "slashdot bias" against organized religion ignores the fact the GP wasn't expressing a bias, he was responding to a false claim that Intelligent design is science, a scam to sneak creationism past the separation of church and state.
Finally, you got modded up for that bullshit, proving that there is a bias FOR the view you cast in a light of oppression, not against it.
Disney has several theme parks around the world that feature furries and
princesses. Do you feel that those threaten science as well? 1- They aren't calling them museums.
2- They have exhibits that teach science.
You're gonna be paying more for a DRM scheme that allows a limited number of copies, IF all your gear is "trusted" and expensive, of course. They have been consistent in their efforts: they want control.
With the CCTV + credit + wiretaps + packet sniffing + etc, you don't.
Sure, you trust your government with this now.
Will you trust the government in 10 years with this tool?
Think about that before you open Pandora's mysterious package.
The people who are in the habit of getting away with crimes know to look for a blind spot to hide in. They'll get comfy and get caught eventually, but they'll have a lot of crimes under their belt before then.
Crime is a social problem, and you can't solve a social problem with a technical solution.
If you get blackballed from every media, then you are effectively silent.
Now with actual linkage goodness.