Yeah, sorry, I guess that was a little too subtle for me. I thought the smiley was for patronization. btw - you might want to change the size of the images on your blog. Privoxy identifies them as ads by their size and blocks them.
Oh, don't be silly -- of course conspiracies exist. -macshit Get out from under your tinfoil hat, and stop being so paranoid.;) - brianosaurus
I should let you two argue with each other.
I was pointing to the knee-jerk, attack mode you guys go into whenever anyone makes a suggestion that someone may be involved in a conspiracy. And I'm just saying that your attitude is a little unreasonable considering that conspiracies happen. Not just large conspiracies but small, large, and in-between. You've probably experienced them at work or between your friends or family. There's a whole spectrum of conspiracies going on at any and all times. Hell, you can watch 'em happen on TV now on Survivor and Big Brother and all the other "reality" shows. So don't pretend that there is no conspiracy until it's printed on the front pages of world's newspapers.
People can be vicious and greedy and will sometimes do nasty things to get what they want, especially when our culture encourages it. Our culture tells us to not let anything stop us from achieving our goals -- that winning is more important than integrity. I don't believe that there is some shadowy organization that has control of all world affairs. But I do believe that there are like-minded people in the United States who believe in the same goals and will organize to see things happen their way. Control of voting machines is a lucrative source of power.
You put the "tinfoil hat" on me and called me "paranoid." Kudos to you, sir.
Consider this: Did Nixon conspire to burglarize Daniel Elsburg's psychiatrist's office and then conspire again to cover it up? Did Ollie North conspire to trade arms to Iran and funnel the money to the Contras? These are just two examples of well-known conspiracies. Many others are known and many more are never discovered. Yet people like you will jump at any chance to deny that conspiracies happen. You would have people believe that I'm a kook. Yet who is more kooky -- one who believes conspiracies happen or one who denies they exist?
Since the moderators have probably finished modding this thread I'll have to give you an honorary: +5 (insightful)
What I want to know is, why aren't the politicians who have the most to lose from this issue making more noise about it?
Because as soon as someone points to the possibility of a conspiracy they're immediately painted a bright shade of whacko by every pundit with a camera, microphone, pen, or keyboard. People want to believe that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along. The very thought of a conspiracy shakes their foundations and causes them discomfort so they ignore the possibility, despite the fact that conspiracies have happened often in the past and are undoubtedly going on right now.
You can see it right here on Slashdot. If you want a nice karma boost, just post a derogatory reply to someone who suggests a conspiracy and include the words "tinfoil hat." Zap! You're good for a "+5 (insightful)". The people are suffering from head-in-the-sand syndrome.
I have seen diffuse contrails and they're pretty thin on vapor once they spread out. There is a much greater quantity of material in the cloud at the end of the trail than would be explained by diffusion. That's a pretty thick cloud of material. It's visibly not diffuse, and the fact that it reflects so much more sunlight (if you accept the reflection theory) than the rest of the trail is further proof that diffusion isn't the answer. The segment that is more diffuse should reflect less light per unit of area than the less diffuse segment.
Sometimes the arrogance of academia astounds even me
And sometimes the arrogance of those who claim possession of truth and righteousness despite a total lack of evidence astounds me.
Can prayer hurt? Let me give you an example. My wife had severe migraines when she was younger. She had been to several specialists without results. Her church offered special prayer service where the entire congregation placed her front-and-center while everyone (including her) prayed for her migraines to be cured. Naturally, it didn't work so the congregation had to come up with an explanation so that their precious faith wouldn't be shaken. Their explanation was that she didn't believe enough. That was devastating to her because she felt like she did truly believe. Telling a person that they are at fault for their failure to heal isn't exactly helping the problem. She and I are both non-believers now and her migraines have been cured through medical means, but she still has painful memories from prayer for her illness.
People who pray are thinking positively; people who don't usually aren't.
Well, that's a pretty sweeping generalization. I agree with your comment about positive thinking but to assume non-believers aren't positive thinkers is going way too far. I would alter that to say that someone who prays is focusing intently on healing, whereas a non-believer is more likely let the doctor take care of things.
You offer no counter-arguments but simply claim that the parent post is wrong because it doesn't sound right to you. By using baited words like "communist", "far left", and "Che Guevara", you make it obvious that you disagree on ideological grounds. If your ideology offers you no effective counter-argument, then perhaps it is your ideology that is wrong.
You also make it clear that even brilliantly composed arguments such as the one you replied to have no effect on the "True Believers" of the world. You are guided by faith rather than reason. You have faith that the "free market" will solve all of society's ills. You pray to the invisible hand to make the world a better place while ignoring the glaring inequities of the inevitable monopolization and exploitation that such a system generates.
Pure capitalism is no better than pure socialism or any other pure "ism." Pure capitalism crashed in a heap in 1929. Do you really want to repeat that experiment? FDR balanced the social equation by injecting some socialism into the US system -- just enough to maintain prosperity without falling toward stagnation. Balancing the ideologies and applying the best of each to counter their worst yields the sustainable, stable society that business needs in order to prosper over the long term.
People often confuse the social contract with an economic one. They'll make statements like, "Why should I pay tax dollars so that someone who doesn't work can have welfare? What do I owe them?" What do you owe them? -- Nothing. What do you owe society? -- Everything. It is a stable society that allows you to prosper. If large numbers of people are left out of the system they will be inclined to revolt. Revolutions cause big swings of the social pendulum that take generations to dampen. Let's not start it swinging again.
short of lobotimizing everybody in the world... hmmm, maybe Bush is working on that
He is, indirectly, via corporate media brainwashing. That's why 70% of US residents believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11, among other fallacies. Break the corporate media backbone . . . promote and use P2P.
Politicians want money to further their grandeur, scientists want money to further theirs.
You left out religious leaders. They have a big interest in keeping you afraid of an undetectable being so that you'll pony up on Sunday (or Wednesday, Friday, or Saturday as the deity dictates.)
... if scientists had put their knowledge to true good they would have developed polution [sic] friendly methods of power, chemical weapons what made the enemy fall pass out instead of die...Why didn't they develop these?
What makes you think they haven't? Scientists develop technologies and methods that are socially and environmentally friendly quite often. You just don't usually see them become widespread because corporations don't promote or market things that don't rake in big profits. Scientists don't make products.
On the security side, I hope that VeriSign avoids Diebold's mistake...and makes the source code and security procedures public for scrutiny.
VeriSign is just subcontracting for the real contractor of this system so I'm sure that won't be a problem. Oh, by the way, the main contractor for this system is Accenture...formerly known as Arthur Anderson Consulting...former accounting chef at Enron. So, see? Nothing to worry about. What shredded documents??!!
...but it really is just a shell game designed to hide the methods behind trickery.
Kind of similar to the title of the article. It spotlights VeriSign but only as an asside does it mention that VeriSign is just a subcontractor for the real magicians rigging...er, running the show -- Accenture! Formerly known as Arthur Anderson Consulting! Former book cooker for Enron! Now how do you like it?
Re:OK, here's how they work
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
Its my understanding that these are passive things...
No. That seems to be the biggest source of confusion about RFID tags. They are active, externally powered devices.
Oppress:
1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.
2. To weigh heavily on.
3. (Obsolete) To overwhelm or crush.
BTW (are you a.k.a. zerocool^?) My original argument was about ending corporate personhood. I added, as an aside, that zerocool^'s point about oppression was extremely dangerous. That began a sub-thread about oppression of minorities, but if you want to join in, then let's go:
Therefore, by your post's reasoning, I may then morally "oppress" that telemarketer.
No. You may not oppress anyone, morally or otherwise. Man, what is with people that they want to wield power over others? Is everybody power-hungry in this society? The Constitution grants power like that to "the people" as a whole under the formal arrangements of a government with limited powers. Those limits are in place specifically to prevent free people, be they a despised minority or not, from being oppressed by the majority.
In other words, your post doesn't include any reason why the DNCL would be bad.
That's probably because I don't think the DNCL is bad. What I'm saying is that we're suffering problems like this because we're stuck in a regime that considers corporations as "persons" when simple common sense would indicate otherwise. These free speech arguments are going to keep being winning propositions for corporations as long as they are considered persons. That's the same problem that campaign finance reform keeps running into. You can't restrict one person's speech without restricting everyone's speech in exactly the same way. That's called equal protection under the law. Every time you try to restrict corporate speech they will use that argument and they will win as long as they are considered persons. Mucking around with hair-splitting laws that attempt to target certain speech and not others will just muddy the waters and lead to endless litigation.
You still didn't define what you mean by "oppression." You just listed groups that you believe should and should not be oppressed. My point and my belief is that no person should be oppressed unless they've been shown to have committed a crime for which the law says that they may be punished. It is not okay for the majority of citizens to oppress any minority of citizens for any reason or under any circumstances. They may speak vile things against them if they wish, but the act of oppression is where the majority crosses the line and begins to commit atrocities.
And then real citizens would see their power flourish. Political parties should un-incorporate, anyway. The ACLU could reform itself as a political party or speak as individual citizens. Newspapers would go back to being family-owned entities with a printing press. The things you point out are not disasters for freedom or democracy. In fact, they're quite the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, sorry, I guess that was a little too subtle for me. I thought the smiley was for patronization.
btw - you might want to change the size of the images on your blog. Privoxy identifies them as ads by their size and blocks them.
Oh, don't be silly -- of course conspiracies exist.
-macshit
Get out from under your tinfoil hat, and stop being so paranoid.
- brianosaurus
I should let you two argue with each other.
I was pointing to the knee-jerk, attack mode you guys go into whenever anyone makes a suggestion that someone may be involved in a conspiracy. And I'm just saying that your attitude is a little unreasonable considering that conspiracies happen. Not just large conspiracies but small, large, and in-between. You've probably experienced them at work or between your friends or family. There's a whole spectrum of conspiracies going on at any and all times. Hell, you can watch 'em happen on TV now on Survivor and Big Brother and all the other "reality" shows. So don't pretend that there is no conspiracy until it's printed on the front pages of world's newspapers.
People can be vicious and greedy and will sometimes do nasty things to get what they want, especially when our culture encourages it. Our culture tells us to not let anything stop us from achieving our goals -- that winning is more important than integrity. I don't believe that there is some shadowy organization that has control of all world affairs. But I do believe that there are like-minded people in the United States who believe in the same goals and will organize to see things happen their way. Control of voting machines is a lucrative source of power.
Nice post. Thanks for proving my point.
You put the "tinfoil hat" on me and called me "paranoid." Kudos to you, sir.
Consider this: Did Nixon conspire to burglarize Daniel Elsburg's psychiatrist's office and then conspire again to cover it up? Did Ollie North conspire to trade arms to Iran and funnel the money to the Contras? These are just two examples of well-known conspiracies. Many others are known and many more are never discovered. Yet people like you will jump at any chance to deny that conspiracies happen. You would have people believe that I'm a kook. Yet who is more kooky -- one who believes conspiracies happen or one who denies they exist?
Since the moderators have probably finished modding this thread I'll have to give you an honorary:
+5 (insightful)
"head in the sand"
Sounds like a head in the sand to me.
What I want to know is, why aren't the politicians who have the most to lose from this issue making more noise about it?
Because as soon as someone points to the possibility of a conspiracy they're immediately painted a bright shade of whacko by every pundit with a camera, microphone, pen, or keyboard. People want to believe that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along. The very thought of a conspiracy shakes their foundations and causes them discomfort so they ignore the possibility, despite the fact that conspiracies have happened often in the past and are undoubtedly going on right now.
You can see it right here on Slashdot. If you want a nice karma boost, just post a derogatory reply to someone who suggests a conspiracy and include the words "tinfoil hat." Zap! You're good for a "+5 (insightful)". The people are suffering from head-in-the-sand syndrome.
I have seen diffuse contrails and they're pretty thin on vapor once they spread out. There is a much greater quantity of material in the cloud at the end of the trail than would be explained by diffusion. That's a pretty thick cloud of material. It's visibly not diffuse, and the fact that it reflects so much more sunlight (if you accept the reflection theory) than the rest of the trail is further proof that diffusion isn't the answer. The segment that is more diffuse should reflect less light per unit of area than the less diffuse segment.
What explains the huge, billowing shape at the end? I've never seen a contrail shaped like that.
Sometimes the arrogance of academia astounds even me
And sometimes the arrogance of those who claim possession of truth and righteousness despite a total lack of evidence astounds me.
Can prayer hurt? Let me give you an example.
My wife had severe migraines when she was younger. She had been to several specialists without results. Her church offered special prayer service where the entire congregation placed her front-and-center while everyone (including her) prayed for her migraines to be cured. Naturally, it didn't work so the congregation had to come up with an explanation so that their precious faith wouldn't be shaken. Their explanation was that she didn't believe enough. That was devastating to her because she felt like she did truly believe. Telling a person that they are at fault for their failure to heal isn't exactly helping the problem. She and I are both non-believers now and her migraines have been cured through medical means, but she still has painful memories from prayer for her illness.
So, yes, prayer can hurt.
People who pray are thinking positively; people who don't usually aren't.
Well, that's a pretty sweeping generalization. I agree with your comment about positive thinking but to assume non-believers aren't positive thinkers is going way too far. I would alter that to say that someone who prays is focusing intently on healing, whereas a non-believer is more likely let the doctor take care of things.
If this were Windows or some proprietary software, you'd have the BSA breathing down their neck.
Breathing, hell. They'd be ripping their head off and shitting down their neck.
Your post is the very definition of "knee-jerk."
You offer no counter-arguments but simply claim that the parent post is wrong because it doesn't sound right to you. By using baited words like "communist", "far left", and "Che Guevara", you make it obvious that you disagree on ideological grounds. If your ideology offers you no effective counter-argument, then perhaps it is your ideology that is wrong.
You also make it clear that even brilliantly composed arguments such as the one you replied to have no effect on the "True Believers" of the world. You are guided by faith rather than reason. You have faith that the "free market" will solve all of society's ills. You pray to the invisible hand to make the world a better place while ignoring the glaring inequities of the inevitable monopolization and exploitation that such a system generates.
Pure capitalism is no better than pure socialism or any other pure "ism." Pure capitalism crashed in a heap in 1929. Do you really want to repeat that experiment? FDR balanced the social equation by injecting some socialism into the US system -- just enough to maintain prosperity without falling toward stagnation. Balancing the ideologies and applying the best of each to counter their worst yields the sustainable, stable society that business needs in order to prosper over the long term.
People often confuse the social contract with an economic one. They'll make statements like, "Why should I pay tax dollars so that someone who doesn't work can have welfare? What do I owe them?"
What do you owe them? -- Nothing.
What do you owe society? -- Everything.
It is a stable society that allows you to prosper. If large numbers of people are left out of the system they will be inclined to revolt. Revolutions cause big swings of the social pendulum that take generations to dampen. Let's not start it swinging again.
From your post, it seems we could also use a
-1 (head in the sand)
Trying to enforce a little political correctness, are we?
If the article would have blamed things on Bill Clinton, you probably would have just nodded in agreement and moved on.
short of lobotimizing everybody in the world... hmmm, maybe Bush is working on that
He is, indirectly, via corporate media brainwashing. That's why 70% of US residents believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11, among other fallacies.
Break the corporate media backbone . . . promote and use P2P.
Politicians want money to further their grandeur, scientists want money to further theirs.
You left out religious leaders. They have a big interest in keeping you afraid of an undetectable being so that you'll pony up on Sunday (or Wednesday, Friday, or Saturday as the deity dictates.)
What makes you think they haven't? Scientists develop technologies and methods that are socially and environmentally friendly quite often. You just don't usually see them become widespread because corporations don't promote or market things that don't rake in big profits.
Scientists don't make products.
And more to the point, how do they find the centers?
You just keep licking them and you eventually get to the centers.
Incidentally I find it really interesting that everyone seems to assume from the start that any ballot tampering would be directed by the GOP.
Maybe that's because all the voting machines are manufactured and marketed by Republican-controlled businesses.
A single court in Washington D.C. appoints Presidents now.
On the security side, I hope that VeriSign avoids Diebold's mistake...and makes the source code and security procedures public for scrutiny.
VeriSign is just subcontracting for the real contractor of this system so I'm sure that won't be a problem. Oh, by the way, the main contractor for this system is Accenture...formerly known as Arthur Anderson Consulting...former accounting chef at Enron. So, see? Nothing to worry about.
What shredded documents??!!
Kind of similar to the title of the article. It spotlights VeriSign but only as an asside does it mention that VeriSign is just a subcontractor for the real magicians rigging...er, running the show -- Accenture! Formerly known as Arthur Anderson Consulting! Former book cooker for Enron! Now how do you like it?
Its my understanding that these are passive things...
No. That seems to be the biggest source of confusion about RFID tags. They are active, externally powered devices.
...that if you bury your head in the sand deeply enough, it will block the RF (and all these other problems in the world, too.)
From Dictionary.com:
Oppress:
1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.
2. To weigh heavily on.
3. (Obsolete) To overwhelm or crush.
BTW (are you a.k.a. zerocool^?)
My original argument was about ending corporate personhood. I added, as an aside, that zerocool^'s point about oppression was extremely dangerous. That began a sub-thread about oppression of minorities, but if you want to join in, then let's go:
Therefore, by your post's reasoning, I may then morally "oppress" that telemarketer.
No. You may not oppress anyone, morally or otherwise. Man, what is with people that they want to wield power over others? Is everybody power-hungry in this society? The Constitution grants power like that to "the people" as a whole under the formal arrangements of a government with limited powers. Those limits are in place specifically to prevent free people, be they a despised minority or not, from being oppressed by the majority.
In other words, your post doesn't include any reason why the DNCL would be bad.
That's probably because I don't think the DNCL is bad. What I'm saying is that we're suffering problems like this because we're stuck in a regime that considers corporations as "persons" when simple common sense would indicate otherwise. These free speech arguments are going to keep being winning propositions for corporations as long as they are considered persons. That's the same problem that campaign finance reform keeps running into. You can't restrict one person's speech without restricting everyone's speech in exactly the same way. That's called equal protection under the law. Every time you try to restrict corporate speech they will use that argument and they will win as long as they are considered persons.
Mucking around with hair-splitting laws that attempt to target certain speech and not others will just muddy the waters and lead to endless litigation.
You still didn't define what you mean by "oppression." You just listed groups that you believe should and should not be oppressed. My point and my belief is that no person should be oppressed unless they've been shown to have committed a crime for which the law says that they may be punished. It is not okay for the majority of citizens to oppress any minority of citizens for any reason or under any circumstances. They may speak vile things against them if they wish, but the act of oppression is where the majority crosses the line and begins to commit atrocities.
And then real citizens would see their power flourish. Political parties should un-incorporate, anyway. The ACLU could reform itself as a political party or speak as individual citizens. Newspapers would go back to being family-owned entities with a printing press. The things you point out are not disasters for freedom or democracy. In fact, they're quite the opposite.