My city saw similar issues with are taxi cabs. Far too few, which meant at peak times the taxi cab offices simply gave up answering their telegraphs - they had enough work anyway to become very rich indeed, leaving consumers with a barely functional service. De-regulation saw an increase in cars, meaning now I barely have to wait for conveyance to the club for a good brandy.
I love that idea. Posting on websites is all good and well but nowhere near as visible as it needs to be.
Another option is to require them to prefix all statements in either houses (or whatever they call them in the U.S) with disclosure of all donations of a certain amount received during their current term. "This statement brought to you by .
Small government is like freedom of religion. Just as freedom of religion is often freedom for a specific religion, small government obviously doesn't apply when it'd hinder one's business interests.
I wonder why they haven't banned the Internet? Surely the scourge of freely available Internet delivered news is as much a threat to publishers and paperboys as Tesla is to the car dealership cartel?
Exactly. I never understood why they bother to lock the phones in the first place. If you have a 2 year contract, they have your money already for that long. Locking the phone doesn't gain them anything. If you want to unlock your phone and go somewhere else, they just get free money out of you since now they don't have to provide you any service.
Locking the phone prevents users using third-party SIMs for cheaper international and/or data rates. For example, O2 in the UK posts a rate of £6 (around $9) per megabyte when roaming in the U.S. It'd be way cheaper to buy a pre-paid SIM, one of which I looked at offers 500GB of data over seven days for just $25.
It's one of a few reasons that I'm never again entering in to a long-term contract with a carrier. I don't want a gimped phone, and I definitely don't want to be tied to a carrier for anything more than six months at a time. Seems more sensible to swallow the initial costs of purchasing a phone in exchange for this flexibility.
I ask myself this multiple times a day every day. Occam's razor, right? Still, if you are right, then many people on Slashdot are wrong because I agree with a number of regular posters on here.
Yeah, and also separating the important from stuff that annoys you but ultimately isn't a big deal. I'm annoyed when people use cell phones in restaurants. That's more my issue though, not something that really needs to change.
This is probably one of the two most relevant things you've mentioned. I probably do have some sort of problem. What's very interesting is that I've taught classes in the past and they love the way I teach. Why can I teach a class but not always help someone see something that I do? I suspect the answer is because I see things in a way others do not and therefore it requires a lengthy explanation. (I've been accused multiple times of taking too long to explain something.) People don't like lengthy. They want short. Is that my problem or theirs? Is this reply lengthy? Or is it thorough? Will anyone read it?
think we have a fair bit in common. I'm also prone to overly lengthy explanations. It's been a serious issue both at work, where senior managers lose interest in my otherwise useful ideas, and in relationships where sometimes simple is more emotionally satisfying to hear. It doesn't mean dumbed down - it's more about context and ensuring the message isn't lost in the details. I love rambling on about my designs and theories. Luckily I have a boss and colleagues who've helped me reign this in a bit.
It's probably because of where I was raised. If I didn't have that attitude growing up, I'd be dead. My neighborhood was not a nice place to be. Remember all those horrible things that happened in New Orleans during Katrina? Looting? Rioting? Murder? None of it surprised me. It was happening before Katrina. It still happens today. One of my many friends who still lives in New Orleans was beaten a couple of weeks ago by a neighbor. She will have months of facial reconstructive surgery. She lost part of her ear in the attack. What's interesting is that despite the "world versus me" attitude, I also have a huge inner drive to make the world better. A lot of times, though, the world doesn't want to get better. That is frustrating. Very frustrating. Ironically, it feeds the "world versus me" attitude... which then fuels the drive to make the world better. It's a vicious cycle I have a hard time keeping in check. Living in New Orleans was killing me. Literally. It was eating me from the inside out because I could not change a city that bad. It was a good thing I left. It saved my life. I admire those that still live there and are able to do so without it hurting them too badly... although I always wonder how true that is?
Ouch, sorry to hear about your friend. Definitely a stand needs to be taken in some situations. I'm ashamed by the times I've out if cowardice sat by while disgusting things have happened. In some cases the right thing is to against the world - it's how change happens. I suppose it's about choosing battles. By bring mindful of perspective you can do the right thing without going mad tilting at windmills.
Something I think is important is to have that understanding of shades of grey, as you indeed do. None of us are saints. At a minimum, we're not going too badly if we try to avoid shitting on our fellow man. There will however be times when you have to put go atomic on someone, and if you have a good conscious, you'll always regret it even if it was necessary. I used to have a lot of anger issues when I was younger, and then became a recluse because it was scary to lose control that way. With a great deal of reflection and good friends I think I've a better balance than I've ever enjoyed in the past.
You seem a thoughtful decent person. I hate seeing good people ground down by this world.
No worries, you simply have to accept the fact that kiddies these days don't get it unless there's at least a LOL, lololol, or Omg LMAO in the sentence.;-)
Indeed, old chap. In the future, anyone not employing at least one LOL variant every six words will be considered emotionally dead. Obituaries and formal declarations of war will be interesting.
1) Are you in fact right? Could there be a reason why the world at large rejects your views?
2) Are you presenting your ideas in an attractive way? Maybe ask some of these people to provide you with some feedback?
3) Is this more about you than the world? Maybe get some counselling before this "world versus me" mentality becomes intractable.
4) Learn to be less bothered by the mundane and the things out of your control.
You really want to be careful to avoid this "Mr. Nice Guy" thing. The mention of good people being turned bad smells of psychosis or at least only in the last line of a long post did you in any way acknowledge possible faults on your side. Realistically with so many push backs it's probably you, not the world that has a problem. Really, talk to a counsellor or a good friend. Viewing the world as you do is ruinous and ultimately leads to misanthropic fuelled self-isolation.
cousinloving44: This is dumb. You're dumb. Everything is dumb! hpoirot: Oh Cointreau mon sherry. Perhaps it is you who are the dumbo, no? cousinloving44: OMG TROLL!
Dictionary of Modern Internet English, edited by Frosty Piss.
Sure, setting sensible time limits would help. That's generally a good principle for any data, and certainly something I've seen in well written policies; if you can't justify a need, delete it.
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
The Kinect is only affecting the homes of people who choose to install the things. Glass is designed to be worn on the go. That's probably why Glass is seen as being more controversial and invasive.
And this is something that needs to be resolved for all digital purchases. I would be very happy to see legal protections in place to allow the re-sale and transfer of such content. Media companies fight this tooth and nail.
I'd grant that uneducated people, which would be a majority during the Middle Ages, could well have thought the world is flat. The best consensus we have right now is that a spherical Earth was more commonly accepted by educated people. If anything people have incorrectly accused the Church if fostering the myth if a flat earth.
On the Bob and Alice example, we'd start with a hypothesis stating that prayer prevents cancer. The first step is to establish if people who pray are less affected by cancer, and work from there. Assuming the prayer group is indeed significantly less afflicted, the next step is to understand why? Barring a mechanism to account for this, science could at least establish that there is indeed an observable phenomenon. Whether that could be ascribed to divine intervention is debatable. Barring any naturalistic explanation, the honest answer is we don't know.
I don't think science is anti-religion, nor should it be. Science can be used to test some claims, but cannot prove or disprove all religious beliefs. I can argue that Yahweh, as described in the Bible, is internally inconsistent. That doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. Science changes, but not for experiential reasons. It changes because of evidence and theories that have greater explanatory use than the ones they replace.
To close, I don't agree with ridiculing religious people. Some religious beliefs are plain silly, no doubt about that, and that needs to be addressed if one would be intellectually honest. I see many Catholic rituals as being little different to shamans waving animal bone fetishes to ward off evil. Doesn't mean I can't respect Catholics. I used to be a Catholic, and still count many as friends.
A good backup regimen would mitigate corruption of keychains.
Although it's true that cracking the keychain would open the door, that would at least require a cracker to get access to the keychain. If stored locally this wouldn't be a trivial thing. In terms of return on investment it would be expensive to do for anything but attempts on individual users. Most attacks are done in bulk on specific services.
I use very strong passwords on accounts where I register payment details, and a *very* strong password on my keychain. It's not invulnerable but it would be very difficult to break.
To some extent true, but adding a camera and a mic would in my opinion make police officers less approachable. It's be fine in sensitive areas and situations. As a general policy though we need the police to be seen as a valuable part of the community.
All police officers should be forced to wear a camera and microphone at all times. These devices should be sealed with no on or off button. Green light means on, no light means off. They should have to pick this camera up at the beginning of their shift, and return them at the end of their shift. These devices will then have the data transfered by an authorized person, that is audited frequently. Any signs of tampering, or a failure of the officer to return and have a not operational camera replaced should result in immediate dismissal. The data should be shared with any defendants immediately. Failure to supply video of the arrest should result in a dismissal of charges against the accused.
So you'd turn every police officer in to a roaming surveillance system? That's all kinds of creepy. I'm guessing this'd undermine their relationship with the public. Who wants to talk to a copper (or even have one nearby) when you know that everything you do and say will be recorded?
I'm fine with having recordings once they suspect something to be amiss, e.g. they're at the scene of a crime or in pursuit. .
Science can be brought to bear on measurable religious claims. I agree though that many claims are too nebulous to study, and religious people are well practiced in producing excuses for their god.
And scientific knowledge does indeed change - i didnt say it was static. Just how though do you think it changes? In the case of using the force to heal or blow up Death Stars, some kind of evidence that an effect exists and correlates with something other than already know factors? It's certainly more than speculation around a phenomena that isn't necessarily even established.
Your approach is naive. There is no immutable barrier separating religion from science. A claim is a claim, regardless if its source. If Bob tell Alice that his co-religionists are divinely protected from cancer, then why can't Alice investigate the existence if this phenomenon? If verified, then why not investigate the causes?
Who exactly 400 years ago thought the Earth to be flat? The ancient Greeks knew it is spherical! It's been a minority view for upwards of a thousand years. Actually it's a good example for you. If x religion says the world is flat, could you disprove their claim or would you instead cede this field of knowledge to theology? I couldn't possibly observe the planet from orbit, that would be an ecumenical matter!
Cheers. That stuff bugs me no end. Speculation is good, so long as it ends with some concrete idea of how it'd be verified. Theories need to be in some way predictive to be anything more than though exercises or pillow talk.
If you believe in something that is greater than you - whether it be God or Buddha or Yaweh or Allah or Satan what-ever-name-it-is - you have some sort of "psychological protective vest"
When I was younger I did not believe in the so-called "power of prayer" (no matter which religion it is, or which God the prayer supposed to go to). I thought the thing is rubbish
Step 1: Establish credentials by stating that you used to hold an opposing view. Provides a sense of credibility, and a starting point. What matters more is how the speaker transitioned from disbeliever to believer, which is what follows.
Then as I age, I get to see a repeat --- cases of, how shall I put it, "miracles" --- where patients that the medical doctors have given up on, made drastic recoveries
Step 2: Wheel out vague anecdotes and faulty reasoning as post hoc support of a conversion. Rather than indicating existence of supernatural super mind power, what you say here suggests more a need for a decent grounding in statistics.
I can't explain how the thing works, I am only an independent observer on that process
Step 3. Argument from ignorance and claim impartiality. This is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists who try to get out of a need for rigorous evidence by saying that they're not asserting, just asking questions. Of course the questions asked strongly imply an assertion, like asking "so why do you think so few Jews died in 9/11?", to imply a Jewish inside job without coming out and saying it.
Perhaps, just perhaps, deep inside our psyche, there is a force that we have not yet touch upon, a force so great that it can fight whatever illness the body has been infected with --- and perhaps, it's the "belief system" that there is something "more powerful than us", through "prayer", that made up a "conduit" or sort, that tap on that force deep within our own psyche, to fight the disease that has inflicted much pain and suffering on the victim / patient
Step 4: The baloney shotgun is armed. Perhaps in my liver I have an army of undetectable ponies that maintain a balance of power that prevents either kidney from seizing control of my renal system.
The word "perhaps" is bolted on to the front of a whole bunch of crazy speculations that are no more to the point than to postulate the universe being at the centre of a giant donkey's arse.
Till now, our human scientific knowledge is still very limited, there are still a lot of things that we do not know
Maybe one day our human can get our technoogy advance to the point that we can get "in touch" with that force deep inside our own psyche
Step 5: Speculation is at an end - shit just got real. At this point, make it clear that this imaginary bullshit for which there's no evidence is only obscured by our lack of technology/open mindedness/faith. Where earlier it was "perhaps", now it's taken as a given that this force exists. The only perhaps left is the question of whether we will ever advance sufficiently in our technology/open mindedness/faith to be able to understand this magical force.
Scientific knowledge is incomplete. Your knowledge of science is on a par with my knowledge of the Iranian dating scene. Like science, you know it does something because you fly in airplanes, and similarly I know Iranians have some form of dating because they marry and they produce children. I've no idea though how man meets women, and you appear to be viewing science as this big mysterious box, that may as well be a fucking great monkey skull shaped cave on a island that brings the rains when you do your little dance.
Could the current gulf between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea be bridged through an exchange of officials?
I nominate Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to swap places with a DPRK counterpart. Kelly would certainly teach them a thing or two. Seeing Kelly visibly aroused while sharing his thoughts on invasive security, ideally while his hands move south, would leave Kim Jong-un feeling the two countries share some common ground.
Either I'm really good at tuning out the ads or you're just really bad at it. While my preferred gaming platform is PC, I still use my PS3 and 360 and don't feel they're overburdened with ads any more than Steam or the likes. If anything it seems worse on PC.
Main differences I see are that the Steam adverts are less intrusive (a bit subjective, I know) and mostly that Steam isn't a paid subscription service required to access what would seem basic functionality of a device in the class of the Xbox 360. Paying to unlock a web browser and Netflix client (which requires a separate Netflix sub on top of that) is a kick in the nuts. Having to then put up with adverts I suppose in this analogy would be like having those freshly kicked nuts get dunked in a box of fire ants?
That was my first impression. It's mentioned that this concerns *fake* pages, yet it could be made way clearer by having a slightly more detailed summary.
Summaries don't have to be written fit on a post-it note.
Slashdot Mirror
My city saw similar issues with are taxi cabs. Far too few, which meant at peak times the taxi cab offices simply gave up answering their telegraphs - they had enough work anyway to become very rich indeed, leaving consumers with a barely functional service. De-regulation saw an increase in cars, meaning now I barely have to wait for conveyance to the club for a good brandy.
I love that idea. Posting on websites is all good and well but nowhere near as visible as it needs to be.
Another option is to require them to prefix all statements in either houses (or whatever they call them in the U.S) with disclosure of all donations of a certain amount received during their current term. "This statement brought to you by .
Small government is like freedom of religion. Just as freedom of religion is often freedom for a specific religion, small government obviously doesn't apply when it'd hinder one's business interests.
I wonder why they haven't banned the Internet? Surely the scourge of freely available Internet delivered news is as much a threat to publishers and paperboys as Tesla is to the car dealership cartel?
What about our right to bear ARMs?
Exactly. I never understood why they bother to lock the phones in the first place. If you have a 2 year contract, they have your money already for that long. Locking the phone doesn't gain them anything. If you want to unlock your phone and go somewhere else, they just get free money out of you since now they don't have to provide you any service.
Locking the phone prevents users using third-party SIMs for cheaper international and/or data rates. For example, O2 in the UK posts a rate of £6 (around $9) per megabyte when roaming in the U.S. It'd be way cheaper to buy a pre-paid SIM, one of which I looked at offers 500GB of data over seven days for just $25.
It's one of a few reasons that I'm never again entering in to a long-term contract with a carrier. I don't want a gimped phone, and I definitely don't want to be tied to a carrier for anything more than six months at a time. Seems more sensible to swallow the initial costs of purchasing a phone in exchange for this flexibility.
Hey Joe,
I ask myself this multiple times a day every day. Occam's razor, right? Still, if you are right, then many people on Slashdot are wrong because I agree with a number of regular posters on here.
Yeah, and also separating the important from stuff that annoys you but ultimately isn't a big deal. I'm annoyed when people use cell phones in restaurants. That's more my issue though, not something that really needs to change.
This is probably one of the two most relevant things you've mentioned. I probably do have some sort of problem. What's very interesting is that I've taught classes in the past and they love the way I teach. Why can I teach a class but not always help someone see something that I do? I suspect the answer is because I see things in a way others do not and therefore it requires a lengthy explanation. (I've been accused multiple times of taking too long to explain something.) People don't like lengthy. They want short. Is that my problem or theirs? Is this reply lengthy? Or is it thorough? Will anyone read it?
think we have a fair bit in common. I'm also prone to overly lengthy explanations. It's been a serious issue both at work, where senior managers lose interest in my otherwise useful ideas, and in relationships where sometimes simple is more emotionally satisfying to hear. It doesn't mean dumbed down - it's more about context and ensuring the message isn't lost in the details. I love rambling on about my designs and theories. Luckily I have a boss and colleagues who've helped me reign this in a bit.
It's probably because of where I was raised. If I didn't have that attitude growing up, I'd be dead. My neighborhood was not a nice place to be. Remember all those horrible things that happened in New Orleans during Katrina? Looting? Rioting? Murder? None of it surprised me. It was happening before Katrina. It still happens today. One of my many friends who still lives in New Orleans was beaten a couple of weeks ago by a neighbor. She will have months of facial reconstructive surgery. She lost part of her ear in the attack.
What's interesting is that despite the "world versus me" attitude, I also have a huge inner drive to make the world better. A lot of times, though, the world doesn't want to get better. That is frustrating. Very frustrating. Ironically, it feeds the "world versus me" attitude... which then fuels the drive to make the world better. It's a vicious cycle I have a hard time keeping in check. Living in New Orleans was killing me. Literally. It was eating me from the inside out because I could not change a city that bad. It was a good thing I left. It saved my life. I admire those that still live there and are able to do so without it hurting them too badly... although I always wonder how true that is?
Ouch, sorry to hear about your friend. Definitely a stand needs to be taken in some situations. I'm ashamed by the times I've out if cowardice sat by while disgusting things have happened. In some cases the right thing is to against the world - it's how change happens. I suppose it's about choosing battles. By bring mindful of perspective you can do the right thing without going mad tilting at windmills.
Something I think is important is to have that understanding of shades of grey, as you indeed do. None of us are saints. At a minimum, we're not going too badly if we try to avoid shitting on our fellow man. There will however be times when you have to put go atomic on someone, and if you have a good conscious, you'll always regret it even if it was necessary. I used to have a lot of anger issues when I was younger, and then became a recluse because it was scary to lose control that way. With a great deal of reflection and good friends I think I've a better balance than I've ever enjoyed in the past.
You seem a thoughtful decent person. I hate seeing good people ground down by this world.
No worries, you simply have to accept the fact that kiddies these days don't get it unless there's at least a LOL, lololol, or Omg LMAO in the sentence. ;-)
Indeed, old chap. In the future, anyone not employing at least one LOL variant every six words will be considered emotionally dead. Obituaries and formal declarations of war will be interesting.
I'll be frank:
1) Are you in fact right? Could there be a reason why the world at large rejects your views?
2) Are you presenting your ideas in an attractive way? Maybe ask some of these people to provide you with some feedback?
3) Is this more about you than the world? Maybe get some counselling before this "world versus me" mentality becomes intractable.
4) Learn to be less bothered by the mundane and the things out of your control.
You really want to be careful to avoid this "Mr. Nice Guy" thing. The mention of good people being turned bad smells of psychosis or at least only in the last line of a long post did you in any way acknowledge possible faults on your side. Realistically with so many push backs it's probably you, not the world that has a problem. Really, talk to a counsellor or a good friend. Viewing the world as you do is ruinous and ultimately leads to misanthropic fuelled self-isolation.
Troll
Noun
1. Any comment that isn't complimentary.
For example:
cousinloving44: This is dumb. You're dumb. Everything is dumb!
hpoirot: Oh Cointreau mon sherry. Perhaps it is you who are the dumbo, no?
cousinloving44: OMG TROLL!
Dictionary of Modern Internet English, edited by Frosty Piss.
Sure, setting sensible time limits would help. That's generally a good principle for any data, and certainly something I've seen in well written policies; if you can't justify a need, delete it.
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
The Kinect is only affecting the homes of people who choose to install the things. Glass is designed to be worn on the go. That's probably why Glass is seen as being more controversial and invasive.
And this is something that needs to be resolved for all digital purchases. I would be very happy to see legal protections in place to allow the re-sale and transfer of such content. Media companies fight this tooth and nail.
I'd grant that uneducated people, which would be a majority during the Middle Ages, could well have thought the world is flat. The best consensus we have right now is that a spherical Earth was more commonly accepted by educated people. If anything people have incorrectly accused the Church if fostering the myth if a flat earth.
On the Bob and Alice example, we'd start with a hypothesis stating that prayer prevents cancer. The first step is to establish if people who pray are less affected by cancer, and work from there. Assuming the prayer group is indeed significantly less afflicted, the next step is to understand why? Barring a mechanism to account for this, science could at least establish that there is indeed an observable phenomenon. Whether that could be ascribed to divine intervention is debatable. Barring any naturalistic explanation, the honest answer is we don't know.
I don't think science is anti-religion, nor should it be. Science can be used to test some claims, but cannot prove or disprove all religious beliefs. I can argue that Yahweh, as described in the Bible, is internally inconsistent. That doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. Science changes, but not for experiential reasons. It changes because of evidence and theories that have greater explanatory use than the ones they replace.
To close, I don't agree with ridiculing religious people. Some religious beliefs are plain silly, no doubt about that, and that needs to be addressed if one would be intellectually honest. I see many Catholic rituals as being little different to shamans waving animal bone fetishes to ward off evil. Doesn't mean I can't respect Catholics. I used to be a Catholic, and still count many as friends.
Wouldn't sub $1 include all prices below $1, in which by definitionno price by definition be below sub $1?
A good backup regimen would mitigate corruption of keychains.
Although it's true that cracking the keychain would open the door, that would at least require a cracker to get access to the keychain. If stored locally this wouldn't be a trivial thing. In terms of return on investment it would be expensive to do for anything but attempts on individual users. Most attacks are done in bulk on specific services.
I use very strong passwords on accounts where I register payment details, and a *very* strong password on my keychain. It's not invulnerable but it would be very difficult to break.
To some extent true, but adding a camera and a mic would in my opinion make police officers less approachable. It's be fine in sensitive areas and situations. As a general policy though we need the police to be seen as a valuable part of the community.
+1 funny and unfortunately true for some people.
All police officers should be forced to wear a camera and microphone at all times. These devices should be sealed with no on or off button. Green light means on, no light means off. They should have to pick this camera up at the beginning of their shift, and return them at the end of their shift. These devices will then have the data transfered by an authorized person, that is audited frequently. Any signs of tampering, or a failure of the officer to return and have a not operational camera replaced should result in immediate dismissal. The data should be shared with any defendants immediately. Failure to supply video of the arrest should result in a dismissal of charges against the accused.
So you'd turn every police officer in to a roaming surveillance system? That's all kinds of creepy. I'm guessing this'd undermine their relationship with the public. Who wants to talk to a copper (or even have one nearby) when you know that everything you do and say will be recorded?
I'm fine with having recordings once they suspect something to be amiss, e.g. they're at the scene of a crime or in pursuit. .
Science can be brought to bear on measurable religious claims. I agree though that many claims are too nebulous to study, and religious people are well practiced in producing excuses for their god.
And scientific knowledge does indeed change - i didnt say it was static. Just how though do you think it changes? In the case of using the force to heal or blow up Death Stars, some kind of evidence that an effect exists and correlates with something other than already know factors? It's certainly more than speculation around a phenomena that isn't necessarily even established.
Your approach is naive. There is no immutable barrier separating religion from science. A claim is a claim, regardless if its source. If Bob tell Alice that his co-religionists are divinely protected from cancer, then why can't Alice investigate the existence if this phenomenon? If verified, then why not investigate the causes?
Who exactly 400 years ago thought the Earth to be flat? The ancient Greeks knew it is spherical! It's been a minority view for upwards of a thousand years. Actually it's a good example for you. If x religion says the world is flat, could you disprove their claim or would you instead cede this field of knowledge to theology? I couldn't possibly observe the planet from orbit, that would be an ecumenical matter!
Cheers. That stuff bugs me no end. Speculation is good, so long as it ends with some concrete idea of how it'd be verified. Theories need to be in some way predictive to be anything more than though exercises or pillow talk.
If you believe in something that is greater than you - whether it be God or Buddha or Yaweh or Allah or Satan what-ever-name-it-is - you have some sort of "psychological protective vest"
When I was younger I did not believe in the so-called "power of prayer" (no matter which religion it is, or which God the prayer supposed to go to). I thought the thing is rubbish
Step 1: Establish credentials by stating that you used to hold an opposing view. Provides a sense of credibility, and a starting point. What matters more is how the speaker transitioned from disbeliever to believer, which is what follows.
Then as I age, I get to see a repeat --- cases of, how shall I put it, "miracles" --- where patients that the medical doctors have given up on, made drastic recoveries
Step 2: Wheel out vague anecdotes and faulty reasoning as post hoc support of a conversion. Rather than indicating existence of supernatural super mind power, what you say here suggests more a need for a decent grounding in statistics.
I can't explain how the thing works, I am only an independent observer on that process
Step 3. Argument from ignorance and claim impartiality. This is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists who try to get out of a need for rigorous evidence by saying that they're not asserting, just asking questions. Of course the questions asked strongly imply an assertion, like asking "so why do you think so few Jews died in 9/11?", to imply a Jewish inside job without coming out and saying it.
Perhaps, just perhaps, deep inside our psyche, there is a force that we have not yet touch upon, a force so great that it can fight whatever illness the body has been infected with --- and perhaps, it's the "belief system" that there is something "more powerful than us", through "prayer", that made up a "conduit" or sort, that tap on that force deep within our own psyche, to fight the disease that has inflicted much pain and suffering on the victim / patient
Step 4: The baloney shotgun is armed. Perhaps in my liver I have an army of undetectable ponies that maintain a balance of power that prevents either kidney from seizing control of my renal system.
The word "perhaps" is bolted on to the front of a whole bunch of crazy speculations that are no more to the point than to postulate the universe being at the centre of a giant donkey's arse.
Till now, our human scientific knowledge is still very limited, there are still a lot of things that we do not know
Maybe one day our human can get our technoogy advance to the point that we can get "in touch" with that force deep inside our own psyche
Step 5: Speculation is at an end - shit just got real. At this point, make it clear that this imaginary bullshit for which there's no evidence is only obscured by our lack of technology/open mindedness/faith. Where earlier it was "perhaps", now it's taken as a given that this force exists. The only perhaps left is the question of whether we will ever advance sufficiently in our technology/open mindedness/faith to be able to understand this magical force.
Scientific knowledge is incomplete. Your knowledge of science is on a par with my knowledge of the Iranian dating scene. Like science, you know it does something because you fly in airplanes, and similarly I know Iranians have some form of dating because they marry and they produce children. I've no idea though how man meets women, and you appear to be viewing science as this big mysterious box, that may as well be a fucking great monkey skull shaped cave on a island that brings the rains when you do your little dance.
Could the current gulf between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea be bridged through an exchange of officials?
I nominate Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to swap places with a DPRK counterpart. Kelly would certainly teach them a thing or two. Seeing Kelly visibly aroused while sharing his thoughts on invasive security, ideally while his hands move south, would leave Kim Jong-un feeling the two countries share some common ground.
Either I'm really good at tuning out the ads or you're just really bad at it. While my preferred gaming platform is PC, I still use my PS3 and 360 and don't feel they're overburdened with ads any more than Steam or the likes. If anything it seems worse on PC.
Main differences I see are that the Steam adverts are less intrusive (a bit subjective, I know) and mostly that Steam isn't a paid subscription service required to access what would seem basic functionality of a device in the class of the Xbox 360. Paying to unlock a web browser and Netflix client (which requires a separate Netflix sub on top of that) is a kick in the nuts. Having to then put up with adverts I suppose in this analogy would be like having those freshly kicked nuts get dunked in a box of fire ants?
(if you plan on subscribing to live for 2 years anyway)
I know copyright industry groups and cell carriers are allowed to execute people, but now Microsoft?
Fuck it. I'll go down fighting!
That was my first impression. It's mentioned that this concerns *fake* pages, yet it could be made way clearer by having a slightly more detailed summary.
Summaries don't have to be written fit on a post-it note.