I personally have been somewhat critical of Sarkeesian, but hearing this really makes me feel bad.
Well, then it looks like her marketing campaign (because that's what this is) seems to be working. The YouTube comments don't look like anything worse than you can find on many YouTube videos - it has to be the most inane set of commenters anywhere on the Internet. The set of threats from the one Twitter account certainly justifies calling the authorities, but there is no evidence it is a real person and not part of her marketing campaign.
You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one),
A quick glance around the internets suggests that it was promoted by the Romney campaign, including his self, but has a history going back reps calling single-payer health care "Hillarycare". So no, definitely "Obamacare" as well.
No doubt Romney's campaign used the term, but it was in widespread use long before then. Everything that I've read indicates that Hillary's primary campaign actually coined the term, so you might have a point that it was a campaign that promoted, but both of those were presidential campaigns, not "shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns."
Death panels. Obamacare. Birthers. The memes don't have to be jokes.
You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one), or "Birthers", which was certainly an organic meme, to describe people questioning Obama's origins. It's also a form of the "something-ers" form of describing a group (deniers, anti-vacciners, etc.), which as I recall sprang out of calling the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "truthers".
Actually, some of them (such as Joshua Halpern a.k.a. ‘Eli Rabett’) are paid directly by taxpayer funding to blog on places like realclimate.org. So, yes, there is a financial motivation.
As far as "well what's wrong with that if they are telling the truth", that always seems to be the go-to, but it apparently is only acceptable to trot out this defense for alarmists, and never for skeptics like Watt. The minor and late-to-the-game contribution from Heritage that alarmists use to beat Watt over the head with is nothing but a red herring and ad hominem used to distract from debate on the real issues anyway, and it pales in comparison to Peter Gleick's fraud and forging of documents to discredit his opponents.
Be that as it may, you seem to be under the impression that these guys have some interest in "truth" or "honesty", and that is simply not the case. As Gleick demonstrated, they have no interest in truth, and any will use any means to further their agenda. They are only interested in science when it supports that agenda, and when it doesn't they will throw out science and use other tactics instead. There are many examples of editing of comments on the site, decption and lies, etc., - there is no real discussion allowed. That's not surprising since it is run by Fenton Communications, run by David Fenton, an unapologetic anti-Semite and propagandist that would have made Goebbels proud.
The point of the site isn't even to promote science, it's to promote "consensus".
Dude, the question was about Enterprise servers. Do your development on Mint, that's just fine, but are you really going to deploy your production enterprise application on a farm of... Mint servers? really?
To be fair, science is a belief system. It's just a belief that we can come to understand best by translating explanations into testable empirical hypotheses that make different predictions than competing hypotheses, and then testing those competing hypotheses.
That sounds more like a methodology to me. The "belief system" part is only related to the value of the methodology. That's fine, but science itself is a methodology, as I think you have described here.
I certainly agree with your assessment of it, and that the methodology is the important thing to teach, not the facts or even thoroughly tested hypotheses. Everything flows from core principles. As you have done, you can describe your belief system as a faith in the scientific method. But that's something else.
There are, of course, some very clear opposing bases for belief systems in general, which often come down to faith in a higher power or faith only in empirical evidence. But you can pick either one and still do science.
Incorrect. You could have at least tried to check Wikipedia before posting ignorant comments. This is directly from their page (check the link if you want source references).
In its 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) that had prohibited corporate and union political expenditures in political campaigns.[5] Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns.[6][7] Organizations seeking to contribute directly to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose.[8]
Stop getting your information from partisan comedians. It's an embarrassment.
This isn't "Watts up with that" where there's a financial payment for having the right opinions.
Actually, it operates on exactly that principal. The owners and operators of the site are financially dependent on the ideas espoused in the articles, and are in fact publicity whores with more interest in popular opinion that truth.
Think of all the evolutionary opportunity there will be in the Next Phase!
There won't be any. Well, there will be, but those new species will never get the chance to progress up the evolutionary ladder as humans did, ever again. The reason is you need easily accessible primary resources and especially primary energy to do that, otherwise you're stuck. And we made sure (and will make sure in the time until our demise) that all those resources are fully exhausted.
Which is why I can't understand the myopic thinking around what to do about climate change. It seems the alarmists are adamant that the agenda should be to curtail use of energy by a combination of stopping use of fossil fuels, reduction of energy use generally, and limiting human habitat to allow conservation of wildlands. It's a "hunker-down" approach which, yes, may give humans more time. Yet, if, as they claim, it's human habitat (and thus future generations of humanity) that are in danger and need preserving, it seems clear that their strategy is one that will only buy time.
The only way to ensure the long-term viability of humanity is to spread. Whether that is colonization of space, the solar system, or multi-generational ships to other stars, is not entirely relevant, only that there must be an effort in that direction. Crawling back and tightening the apron strings to mother earth only means that humans will never grow up and leave the nest. Perhaps this is the civilization firewall that explains the Fermi paradox.
Well, we could still work to try to lessen/minimize the damage and instability.
Like, if you had gangrene on your arm, and the doctor announces, "I'm sorry, but we can't save the arm, the damage is irreversible," you wouldn't go, "Ah, well. It's impossible to save the arm. Time to wait it out and adapt."
At least, I'd hope you wouldn't. That's when you have an operation, try to save as much of your arm as you can. And then you think about what caused the gangrene in the first place, and try to not do that ever again.
Oh, okay, I get it. So who gets to decide which parts of the human population to cull?
I am pretty sure you are wrong, and not only because the scientific method has always existed and will always exist. It is "discovery", not "invention".
They will not even have the bible, as paper and printing (or ink) is a result of applied science. So is incidentally horse-husbandry, the fire and the pot the soup is in.
Pretty sure writing pre-dates the scientific method. And I'm sure that Fire soup do.
I'm sorry, but the point regarding the imperial system is relevant. Only the irrational "logic" of religion would explain why the hell we refuse to convert.
No, it's because there is absolutely no benefit to converting from one unit of measure that everyone is already used to and using to another arbitrary unit of measure that would take many years (and possibly an entire generation) to completely convert to. It makes no sense. The only thing useful about it is you don't have to memorize as much and the math is easier. BFD. Here is a chart for you.
What the hell is up with you people over there in the US. Still using Imperial measurements? Banning science in favour of teaching about a wizard who made everything not so long ago. producing 40% of the worlds pollution whilst only having 4% of the worlds population
Why don't you come on over and try to do something about it?
You do good war and spying though, I'll give you that.
That's exactly what I said, but in different language.
Umm, no, it isn't. You quoted a statement that companies are banned from "spending money to influence federal elections.", whereas the quote I provided shows that companies can spend money on "electioneering communications", which I think includes spending money to influence federal elections.
No, it doesn't. I already said it was a thin line. Corporations can create PACs, but cannot contribute to them. They can (after the SCOTUS decision) fund media information about candidates but cannot endorse for or against any candidates. You really have to read and understand all the regulations. You don't, but that's not surprising. A lot of people have run afoul of the FEC for just that kind of misunderstanding.
I think that you missed the note at the beginning of that page:
Note: Portions of this publication may be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Essentially, the Court's ruling permits corporations and labor organizations to use treasury funds to make independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering communications.
That's exactly what I said, but in different language. "electioneering communications" is more concise than mine, though, I'll grant you.
Unlikely. Price out your cable bill compared to your water or gas bill.
I pay less for both (although gas+water, which are both from the city, is higher than Internet). But, if I use lots of water and/or gas it goes way up. So I guess Comcast is going for the same model. In fact, it would be very much like the water and gas model in my locality. I pay a minimum amount ($25 for gas and $35 for water) even if I use NONE. After a certain very basic level of each, they start charging. Exactly like Comcast is saying they are going to start doing.
how did SCOTUS declare it a tax when it wasnt wriiten up as one in the law? How do they have the leeway to change the definition of something in a ruling?
Basically, because that's how the government defended it. SCOTUS didn't come up with it themselves, the Attorney General said that was how the Federal government had the authority to impose it, because the Constitution gives them the power to tax.
You may be thinking of the ability of Corporations and labor unions to create PACs themselves. They can do that, and 501(c)(4) organizations can, too (most issue-advocacy groups do exactly that - MoveOn.org has a separate PAC, as does the AFL-CIO and many corporations like Best Buy, Amazon, and CVS. But they can't contribute their own funds to them). They can also (since Citizen United) do things like fund movies, books, or other media productions that criticize a political candidate, as long as it is not an endorsement or encouragement to vote or not vote for any specific candidate for election.
That may be a thin line - but unless you have a large war chest to defend yourself with expensive lawyers, you better make sure you follow the very specific relations closely, or you'll find yourself the target of an extremely well-funded and organized prosecution, as many have discovered.
Big business wants a small weak government in general
You REALLY need to supply some reference for that, because it's the opposite of everything I ever see.
a government where they can control the regulations
Yes, this *is* what they want, which by definition means a larger government: more regulation, more people to enforce the regulations, more rules, more profit protectionism, etc., etc. It's also the opposite of wanting a "small weak government".
They also want to control how government educates the kids (witness Bill Gates and his "Common Core"). They want wage slaves trained to perform the menial tasks that robots can't do. And focused "job skills". What would be anathema to them is a government that promotes the general idea that everyone can have (or be) their OWN business, and offer their wares or skills to multiple other businesses or enterprises. That is the way of the future, and the way for people to control their own destiny.
There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
You forgot an important recent one: beer. The US, despite being completely banned from the entire industry for over a decade, is now the premier manufacturer of high quality beer. Germany lost it's status years ago, and even Belgium has taken to buying up old, lousy beer companies like Anheuser-Busch and even watering down the beer from that bottom-tier producer.
Sure, that's not much of an export for the US, but neither is "high-speed pizza delivery", but at least our best-in-the-world beer has that potential.
I never understood conservative opposition to unions. In particular, wage slave, blue collar conservatives. Unions are an effectively privatized way to achieve wealth redistribution.
Well you answered your own question right there. Conservative's opposition is based on observing the practice of today's labor unions, which redistribute wealth from their hard-earned hourly wage to the wealthy unions. It's bad enough having your labor exploited by a corporation. Most people don't want their labor exploited by a corporation and a labor union.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally have been somewhat critical of Sarkeesian, but hearing this really makes me feel bad.
Well, then it looks like her marketing campaign (because that's what this is) seems to be working. The YouTube comments don't look like anything worse than you can find on many YouTube videos - it has to be the most inane set of commenters anywhere on the Internet. The set of threats from the one Twitter account certainly justifies calling the authorities, but there is no evidence it is a real person and not part of her marketing campaign.
You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one),
A quick glance around the internets suggests that it was promoted by the Romney campaign, including his self, but has a history going back reps calling single-payer health care "Hillarycare". So no, definitely "Obamacare" as well.
No doubt Romney's campaign used the term, but it was in widespread use long before then. Everything that I've read indicates that Hillary's primary campaign actually coined the term, so you might have a point that it was a campaign that promoted, but both of those were presidential campaigns, not "shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns."
Death panels. Obamacare. Birthers. The memes don't have to be jokes.
You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one), or "Birthers", which was certainly an organic meme, to describe people questioning Obama's origins. It's also a form of the "something-ers" form of describing a group (deniers, anti-vacciners, etc.), which as I recall sprang out of calling the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "truthers".
Actually, some of them (such as Joshua Halpern a.k.a. ‘Eli Rabett’) are paid directly by taxpayer funding to blog on places like realclimate.org. So, yes, there is a financial motivation.
As far as "well what's wrong with that if they are telling the truth", that always seems to be the go-to, but it apparently is only acceptable to trot out this defense for alarmists, and never for skeptics like Watt. The minor and late-to-the-game contribution from Heritage that alarmists use to beat Watt over the head with is nothing but a red herring and ad hominem used to distract from debate on the real issues anyway, and it pales in comparison to Peter Gleick's fraud and forging of documents to discredit his opponents.
Be that as it may, you seem to be under the impression that these guys have some interest in "truth" or "honesty", and that is simply not the case. As Gleick demonstrated, they have no interest in truth, and any will use any means to further their agenda. They are only interested in science when it supports that agenda, and when it doesn't they will throw out science and use other tactics instead. There are many examples of editing of comments on the site, decption and lies, etc., - there is no real discussion allowed. That's not surprising since it is run by Fenton Communications, run by David Fenton, an unapologetic anti-Semite and propagandist that would have made Goebbels proud.
The point of the site isn't even to promote science, it's to promote "consensus".
Exactly. Funny they mention Puppet, it's the default used in Red Hat's latest Dev Ops initiative, OpenShift.
Dude, the question was about Enterprise servers. Do your development on Mint, that's just fine, but are you really going to deploy your production enterprise application on a farm of ... Mint servers? really?
To be fair, science is a belief system. It's just a belief that we can come to understand best by translating explanations into testable empirical hypotheses that make different predictions than competing hypotheses, and then testing those competing hypotheses.
That sounds more like a methodology to me. The "belief system" part is only related to the value of the methodology. That's fine, but science itself is a methodology, as I think you have described here.
I certainly agree with your assessment of it, and that the methodology is the important thing to teach, not the facts or even thoroughly tested hypotheses. Everything flows from core principles. As you have done, you can describe your belief system as a faith in the scientific method. But that's something else.
There are, of course, some very clear opposing bases for belief systems in general, which often come down to faith in a higher power or faith only in empirical evidence. But you can pick either one and still do science.
After Citizens United, they can fund Super PACs.
Incorrect. You could have at least tried to check Wikipedia before posting ignorant comments. This is directly from their page (check the link if you want source references).
Stop getting your information from partisan comedians. It's an embarrassment.
This isn't "Watts up with that" where there's a financial payment for having the right opinions.
Actually, it operates on exactly that principal. The owners and operators of the site are financially dependent on the ideas espoused in the articles, and are in fact publicity whores with more interest in popular opinion that truth.
Think of all the evolutionary opportunity there will be in the Next Phase!
There won't be any. Well, there will be, but those new species will never get the chance to progress up the evolutionary ladder as humans did, ever again. The reason is you need easily accessible primary resources and especially primary energy to do that, otherwise you're stuck. And we made sure (and will make sure in the time until our demise) that all those resources are fully exhausted.
Which is why I can't understand the myopic thinking around what to do about climate change. It seems the alarmists are adamant that the agenda should be to curtail use of energy by a combination of stopping use of fossil fuels, reduction of energy use generally, and limiting human habitat to allow conservation of wildlands. It's a "hunker-down" approach which, yes, may give humans more time. Yet, if, as they claim, it's human habitat (and thus future generations of humanity) that are in danger and need preserving, it seems clear that their strategy is one that will only buy time.
The only way to ensure the long-term viability of humanity is to spread. Whether that is colonization of space, the solar system, or multi-generational ships to other stars, is not entirely relevant, only that there must be an effort in that direction. Crawling back and tightening the apron strings to mother earth only means that humans will never grow up and leave the nest. Perhaps this is the civilization firewall that explains the Fermi paradox.
Well, we could still work to try to lessen/minimize the damage and instability.
Like, if you had gangrene on your arm, and the doctor announces, "I'm sorry, but we can't save the arm, the damage is irreversible," you wouldn't go, "Ah, well. It's impossible to save the arm. Time to wait it out and adapt."
At least, I'd hope you wouldn't. That's when you have an operation, try to save as much of your arm as you can. And then you think about what caused the gangrene in the first place, and try to not do that ever again.
Oh, okay, I get it. So who gets to decide which parts of the human population to cull?
I am pretty sure you are wrong, and not only because the scientific method has always existed and will always exist. It is "discovery", not "invention".
In that vein, so was fire.
They will not even have the bible, as paper and printing (or ink) is a result of applied science. So is incidentally horse-husbandry, the fire and the pot the soup is in.
Pretty sure writing pre-dates the scientific method. And I'm sure that Fire soup do.
I'm sorry, but the point regarding the imperial system is relevant. Only the irrational "logic" of religion would explain why the hell we refuse to convert.
No, it's because there is absolutely no benefit to converting from one unit of measure that everyone is already used to and using to another arbitrary unit of measure that would take many years (and possibly an entire generation) to completely convert to. It makes no sense. The only thing useful about it is you don't have to memorize as much and the math is easier. BFD. Here is a chart for you.
What the hell is up with you people over there in the US. Still using Imperial measurements? Banning science in favour of teaching about a wizard who made everything not so long ago. producing 40% of the worlds pollution whilst only having 4% of the worlds population
Why don't you come on over and try to do something about it?
You do good war and spying though, I'll give you that.
Chicken.
When did science stop being a methodology and become a belief system?
Umm, no, it isn't. You quoted a statement that companies are banned from "spending money to influence federal elections.", whereas the quote I provided shows that companies can spend money on "electioneering communications", which I think includes spending money to influence federal elections.
No, it doesn't. I already said it was a thin line. Corporations can create PACs, but cannot contribute to them. They can (after the SCOTUS decision) fund media information about candidates but cannot endorse for or against any candidates. You really have to read and understand all the regulations. You don't, but that's not surprising. A lot of people have run afoul of the FEC for just that kind of misunderstanding.
I think that you missed the note at the beginning of that page:
That's exactly what I said, but in different language. "electioneering communications" is more concise than mine, though, I'll grant you.
Unlikely. Price out your cable bill compared to your water or gas bill.
I pay less for both (although gas+water, which are both from the city, is higher than Internet). But, if I use lots of water and/or gas it goes way up. So I guess Comcast is going for the same model. In fact, it would be very much like the water and gas model in my locality. I pay a minimum amount ($25 for gas and $35 for water) even if I use NONE. After a certain very basic level of each, they start charging. Exactly like Comcast is saying they are going to start doing.
how did SCOTUS declare it a tax when it wasnt wriiten up as one in the law? How do they have the leeway to change the definition of something in a ruling?
Basically, because that's how the government defended it. SCOTUS didn't come up with it themselves, the Attorney General said that was how the Federal government had the authority to impose it, because the Constitution gives them the power to tax.
They can donate to PACs, which are a special animal in the American political system
Ummm... No. A PAC (Political Action Committee) is simply a funding mechanism for campaigns. Federal laws (since we are talking about Federal elections) prohibit corporations and labor unions from contributing to campaigns, PACs, or generally from spending money to influence federal elections.
You may be thinking of the ability of Corporations and labor unions to create PACs themselves. They can do that, and 501(c)(4) organizations can, too (most issue-advocacy groups do exactly that - MoveOn.org has a separate PAC, as does the AFL-CIO and many corporations like Best Buy, Amazon, and CVS. But they can't contribute their own funds to them). They can also (since Citizen United) do things like fund movies, books, or other media productions that criticize a political candidate, as long as it is not an endorsement or encouragement to vote or not vote for any specific candidate for election.
That may be a thin line - but unless you have a large war chest to defend yourself with expensive lawyers, you better make sure you follow the very specific relations closely, or you'll find yourself the target of an extremely well-funded and organized prosecution, as many have discovered.
Why is this posted under "Hardware"?
Big business wants a small weak government in general
You REALLY need to supply some reference for that, because it's the opposite of everything I ever see.
a government where they can control the regulations
Yes, this *is* what they want, which by definition means a larger government: more regulation, more people to enforce the regulations, more rules, more profit protectionism, etc., etc. It's also the opposite of wanting a "small weak government".
They also want to control how government educates the kids (witness Bill Gates and his "Common Core"). They want wage slaves trained to perform the menial tasks that robots can't do. And focused "job skills". What would be anathema to them is a government that promotes the general idea that everyone can have (or be) their OWN business, and offer their wares or skills to multiple other businesses or enterprises. That is the way of the future, and the way for people to control their own destiny.
There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
You forgot an important recent one: beer. The US, despite being completely banned from the entire industry for over a decade, is now the premier manufacturer of high quality beer. Germany lost it's status years ago, and even Belgium has taken to buying up old, lousy beer companies like Anheuser-Busch and even watering down the beer from that bottom-tier producer.
Sure, that's not much of an export for the US, but neither is "high-speed pizza delivery", but at least our best-in-the-world beer has that potential.
I never understood conservative opposition to unions. In particular, wage slave, blue collar conservatives. Unions are an effectively privatized way to achieve wealth redistribution.
Well you answered your own question right there. Conservative's opposition is based on observing the practice of today's labor unions, which redistribute wealth from their hard-earned hourly wage to the wealthy unions. It's bad enough having your labor exploited by a corporation. Most people don't want their labor exploited by a corporation and a labor union.