That is what many online petitions do these days; you get pestered by those petitions no matter whether you go to a progressive or conservative site.
No problem with petitions. It's things that claim to be petitions on the web site but are actually astroturf that is the problem.
Yes, because only wealthy Democratic donors should ever be allowed to spend money in politics, right?
Absolutely not. Do you have anything other than strawmen?
US Politics main form of corruption is favours done in response to donations. The way forward is to remove most or all of this as a way of doing politics. It's a big topic, with many partial and complete solutions, for example making donations illegal, and instead financing modest campaigns from the public purse. Rich people should not get an advantage in expressing their will in a healthy democracy.
No matter how many wrongs there are, it still doesn't make a right.
Writing a political request, and getting a mass of people to approve it is called a petition. It's written once, with everyone's names signed below it. If instead of presenting it as the petition it is, they convert it into more letters than there are people agreeing is gaming the numbers, and also minimising the input of the people who actually thought about the issue and took the time to write a real letter.
No. A reactionary conservative wouldn't be against net neutrality because tiered service would be a BIG change in how the internet operates. Reactionaries HATE changes like that. A financial conservative would hate the change because a changeover to tiered service is an excuse to steal more money from their pockets.
And yet it *IS* conservative groups that are opposing net neutrality. So there's something wrong with your reasoning.
I could go on, but you're locked into the foolish "conservative = idiot" mindset.
So if you think it's okay when one side uses it, and bad when the other side uses it, you are indeed blinded by partisanship.
That's neither what I think nor what I expressed. My point is that the weight of these corrupt practices are coming from organisations funded by the Koch Brothers. There is no equal on the other side.
So if I type my comments into a web form, I'm not writing.
The web form has no area for typing your own comments. It's name, email and Zip. The words are those of the web owners, attributed to people who were told they were signing a petition.
It's called AGREEING.
And there is a standard instrument for someone or organisation writing an opinion on a political issue, and then seeking a mass of others to endorse it. It's called a petition.
Thinking that all women are the same is as ridiculous as thinking that all men are the same. If you think you have evidence that they are, you are seriously deluded.
Pretty much. But then I've never felt the need to cut myself off from an entire gender because I don't understand a simple social nicety.
Did I tell you after she came back she apologized?
No, but that doesn't really change anything. She too probably values her career and also doesn't want any lingering bad feelings. Just because someone apologises for voicing their offense doesn't mean that they were in the wrong.
since in the workplace sexual harassment is an ongoing issue
It's got nothing to do with sexual harassment. It has to do with talking to a coworker as if they were a friend, when they weren't.
Understand that your decision to withdraw yourself is about you, it's not about the world being wrong.
If you were a male friend, rather than a male coworker, then you would not be excluded from the conversation.
Now I understand perfectly that a lot of people feel exactly like you do.
Including the person you offended.
You very clearly overstepped the mark, and everything you are saying here makes it clear you are confused as to why. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
If the form says... fill out this form and we will send this form letter with this wording to your representatives... then that is just an honest and straightforward exercise of free speech.
It didn't. It said it was a petition, and then the letter finished with "Sincerely" and put your name, even though you didn't write the letter. That's not free speech, that's fraud and corruption.
Individuals sending individual feedback to their congressmen is a good thing no matter how that is facilitated.
What we are talking about isn't that. It's fraudulent astroturf.
A coworker once became angry with me when I asked if she was going to take some time off after having her baby. Wasn't asking as a boss, just a question probably every woman we we worked had asked her.
Probably because it's none of your business. I've no doubt she discussed it with her friends, but coworkers are not the same thing as friends. Small talk is suitable for coworkers, and someone's career and family plans are not smalltalk.
It sounds like your inability to find a relationship with a women steps from your inability to treat them as individuals. Stereotype them as you do, and it's hardly surprising when they stereotype you as a jerk.
The problem is, women in western cultures have been taught that it's insulting for men to express desire for them.
Ah, it's a peculiarity of western cultures. That would explain why many middle eastern women wear head coverings and scarves. Hey, wait a minute...
If you whistle at a beautiful woman walking down the street in a country like Italy or Brazil
Italy and Brazil ARE western cultures. A western culture isn't one that features John Wayne you know.
If you whistle at women you don't know in the street in any country, you're still an asshole. There's nowhere except your imagination where this is OK.
Do you think they're fooling, or even trying to fool anyone into thinking those letters were written and mailed by individuals?
The number of letters sent in is often used as a statistic. But such a statistic is a lie, given the astroturf nature. There is no honest reason for turning a petition into spam letters. It is fraud.
You're obviously blinded by partisanship, and unable to think rationally.
Nonsense. It's a fallacy that in any disagreement between two sides, there is equal right and wrong on both sides and the truth lies in the middle. The corruption of democracy committed on a daily basis by the organisations funded by the Koch brothers has no equivalent on the opposite side. Which is not to say there is no wrong doing on the opposite side. Just that the Koch brothers massively outweigh any corruption done by anyone else.
Every online form I've ever seen lets you write to your two senators, your house rep, and frequently also the white house or other applicable office.
Has it not occurred to you that filling out your details on a web form is not you writing letters. You are being the useful idiot, allowing someone else to have their say over and over again. At the very least such astroturfing should be ignored by politicians. But ideally it should be recognised for the corruption it is and prosecuted.
You get people to sign a petition, and you send a letter in each person's name to each of their representatives. Sometimes they send one to the POTUS as well. The summary seems to be implying that there's something dishonest about this
There is. It's fraudulent. A petition is a petition, it doesn't give a right to pretend to be that person and post letters in their name. Even if the petition signer ticks a box to say it's OK, as it's misrepresenting the degree to which someone cares. There's a big difference in commitment to an opinion between filling out a web form and actually writing a posting a letter.
if true, it's dishonest whether it's the Koch brothers or Earth Defense Alliance.
Who?
Look there is no balanced six of one, half a dozen of the other. The Koch brothers are a constant threat to democracy. There crimes against humanity occur daily.
It'll be a license for a limited number of years. In this hypothetical situation of Samsung buying Nuance, they would simply put impossible terms upon Apple renewing the contract. At which point Apple would withdraw and get another solution, with perhaps a year available to do so. Nuance isn't the only speech recognition company in the world. This is what happened with Google Maps.
Of course it could leave Apple with a temporarily worse solution, just as happened with maps.
Please pay a visit to India or Russia or China, if you have the chance. Over there they still have a lot of people devoting their lives on innovation, because to them, it is the right thing to do
They are certainly the innovators when it comes to malware. So please save the nonsense that they are doing it "because it's the right thing to do." They do what they can to make money, same as any other country.
If you once have approved it, it asks you again for that app and asks you again for that and asks you again for that app as often as you restart the app.
Then you should file a bug or research what the problem with your installation is. The correct behaviour as happens to me is that you are asked to approve a downloaded app once when you download it. It never asks again for that app, unless and until you download another version of it.
Mac OS X 10.6.xxx did not have those Gatekeeper options, hence there is no default setting... sigh, that was the point about my post.
Sure. But that's a small percentage. And being less secure is one of the cons of deciding to stay with a old version of an OS.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a petition on Obamacare. The American Commitment "petition" on net neutrality is here.
http://stopinternetregulation....
It is as I describes, and does NOT feature a comments box. So you are the one who is factually wrong and "making things up out of thin air."
Apology?
Showing your true lack of intelligence there hairyfeet.
That is what many online petitions do these days; you get pestered by those petitions no matter whether you go to a progressive or conservative site.
No problem with petitions. It's things that claim to be petitions on the web site but are actually astroturf that is the problem.
Yes, because only wealthy Democratic donors should ever be allowed to spend money in politics, right?
Absolutely not. Do you have anything other than strawmen?
US Politics main form of corruption is favours done in response to donations. The way forward is to remove most or all of this as a way of doing politics. It's a big topic, with many partial and complete solutions, for example making donations illegal, and instead financing modest campaigns from the public purse. Rich people should not get an advantage in expressing their will in a healthy democracy.
No matter how many wrongs there are, it still doesn't make a right.
Writing a political request, and getting a mass of people to approve it is called a petition. It's written once, with everyone's names signed below it. If instead of presenting it as the petition it is, they convert it into more letters than there are people agreeing is gaming the numbers, and also minimising the input of the people who actually thought about the issue and took the time to write a real letter.
It's wrong, no matter who is doing it.
No. A reactionary conservative wouldn't be against net neutrality because tiered service would be a BIG change in how the internet operates. Reactionaries HATE changes like that.
A financial conservative would hate the change because a changeover to tiered service is an excuse to steal more money from their pockets.
And yet it *IS* conservative groups that are opposing net neutrality. So there's something wrong with your reasoning.
I could go on, but you're locked into the foolish "conservative = idiot" mindset.
Tomayto - Tomarto.
So if you think it's okay when one side uses it, and bad when the other side uses it, you are indeed blinded by partisanship.
That's neither what I think nor what I expressed. My point is that the weight of these corrupt practices are coming from organisations funded by the Koch Brothers. There is no equal on the other side.
So if I type my comments into a web form, I'm not writing.
The web form has no area for typing your own comments. It's name, email and Zip. The words are those of the web owners, attributed to people who were told they were signing a petition.
It's called AGREEING.
And there is a standard instrument for someone or organisation writing an opinion on a political issue, and then seeking a mass of others to endorse it. It's called a petition.
Thinking that all women are the same is as ridiculous as thinking that all men are the same. If you think you have evidence that they are, you are seriously deluded.
Sort of smug aren't you?
Pretty much. But then I've never felt the need to cut myself off from an entire gender because I don't understand a simple social nicety.
Did I tell you after she came back she apologized?
No, but that doesn't really change anything. She too probably values her career and also doesn't want any lingering bad feelings. Just because someone apologises for voicing their offense doesn't mean that they were in the wrong.
since in the workplace sexual harassment is an ongoing issue
It's got nothing to do with sexual harassment. It has to do with talking to a coworker as if they were a friend, when they weren't.
Understand that your decision to withdraw yourself is about you, it's not about the world being wrong.
Oh, yeah. I'm a male.
If you were a male friend, rather than a male coworker, then you would not be excluded from the conversation.
Now I understand perfectly that a lot of people feel exactly like you do.
Including the person you offended.
You very clearly overstepped the mark, and everything you are saying here makes it clear you are confused as to why. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
The fact is that your post was stereotyping all women as the same thing. Of course YOU don't think you are wrong. That's not a surprise.
If the form says... fill out this form and we will send this form letter with this wording to your representatives... then that is just an honest and straightforward exercise of free speech.
It didn't. It said it was a petition, and then the letter finished with "Sincerely" and put your name, even though you didn't write the letter. That's not free speech, that's fraud and corruption.
Individuals sending individual feedback to their congressmen is a good thing no matter how that is facilitated.
What we are talking about isn't that. It's fraudulent astroturf.
If it was it wouldn't have got an angry reply now would it. You can accept my explanation of why or you can remain not knowing why. It's up to you.
A coworker once became angry with me when I asked if she was going to take some time off after having her baby. Wasn't asking as a boss, just a question probably every woman we we worked had asked her.
Probably because it's none of your business. I've no doubt she discussed it with her friends, but coworkers are not the same thing as friends. Small talk is suitable for coworkers, and someone's career and family plans are not smalltalk.
Dick pics/crude messages work for a subset of women as do really well thought out messages.
You keep telling yourself that.
It sounds like your inability to find a relationship with a women steps from your inability to treat them as individuals. Stereotype them as you do, and it's hardly surprising when they stereotype you as a jerk.
The problem is, women in western cultures have been taught that it's insulting for men to express desire for them.
Ah, it's a peculiarity of western cultures. That would explain why many middle eastern women wear head coverings and scarves. Hey, wait a minute...
If you whistle at a beautiful woman walking down the street in a country like Italy or Brazil
Italy and Brazil ARE western cultures. A western culture isn't one that features John Wayne you know.
If you whistle at women you don't know in the street in any country, you're still an asshole. There's nowhere except your imagination where this is OK.
Do you think they're fooling, or even trying to fool anyone into thinking those letters were written and mailed by individuals?
The number of letters sent in is often used as a statistic. But such a statistic is a lie, given the astroturf nature. There is no honest reason for turning a petition into spam letters. It is fraud.
You're obviously blinded by partisanship, and unable to think rationally.
Nonsense. It's a fallacy that in any disagreement between two sides, there is equal right and wrong on both sides and the truth lies in the middle. The corruption of democracy committed on a daily basis by the organisations funded by the Koch brothers has no equivalent on the opposite side. Which is not to say there is no wrong doing on the opposite side. Just that the Koch brothers massively outweigh any corruption done by anyone else.
"Group of luddite imbeciles" - "Conservatives"
"Potayto" - "Potato".
Every online form I've ever seen lets you write to your two senators, your house rep, and frequently also the white house or other applicable office.
Has it not occurred to you that filling out your details on a web form is not you writing letters. You are being the useful idiot, allowing someone else to have their say over and over again. At the very least such astroturfing should be ignored by politicians. But ideally it should be recognised for the corruption it is and prosecuted.
You get people to sign a petition, and you send a letter in each person's name to each of their representatives. Sometimes they send one to the POTUS as well. The summary seems to be implying that there's something dishonest about this
There is. It's fraudulent. A petition is a petition, it doesn't give a right to pretend to be that person and post letters in their name. Even if the petition signer ticks a box to say it's OK, as it's misrepresenting the degree to which someone cares. There's a big difference in commitment to an opinion between filling out a web form and actually writing a posting a letter.
if true, it's dishonest whether it's the Koch brothers or Earth Defense Alliance.
Who?
Look there is no balanced six of one, half a dozen of the other. The Koch brothers are a constant threat to democracy. There crimes against humanity occur daily.
It'll be a license for a limited number of years. In this hypothetical situation of Samsung buying Nuance, they would simply put impossible terms upon Apple renewing the contract. At which point Apple would withdraw and get another solution, with perhaps a year available to do so. Nuance isn't the only speech recognition company in the world. This is what happened with Google Maps.
Of course it could leave Apple with a temporarily worse solution, just as happened with maps.
It's no different in tech now than ever it was.
Please pay a visit to India or Russia or China, if you have the chance. Over there they still have a lot of people devoting their lives on innovation, because to them, it is the right thing to do
They are certainly the innovators when it comes to malware. So please save the nonsense that they are doing it "because it's the right thing to do." They do what they can to make money, same as any other country.
If you once have approved it, it asks you again for that app and asks you again for that and asks you again for that app as often as you restart the app.
Then you should file a bug or research what the problem with your installation is. The correct behaviour as happens to me is that you are asked to approve a downloaded app once when you download it. It never asks again for that app, unless and until you download another version of it.
Mac OS X 10.6.xxx did not have those Gatekeeper options, hence there is no default setting ... sigh, that was the point about my post.
Sure. But that's a small percentage. And being less secure is one of the cons of deciding to stay with a old version of an OS.
The stupidity is using file extensions as file types. But that horse has long since bolted.