Have you ever bought a frying pan because it looked good?
Hell yes. When I'm entertaining a hot chick and cooking a seduction meal for her, I don't want her thinking I live in some sort of student house. My kitchen utensils speak of a bachelor pad that is occupied by a man who has his shit together. And I'm not the only one. Look at the amount of money people pay at Williams & Sonoma for designer toasters, pots, pans, and tea towels.
A hammer?
Maybe. If it looks cheap I'm less inclined to buy it. Plus, a certain amount of design effort goes into making them look good these days anyway.
A screwdriver?
No, but they all look pretty good these days anyway. They're all designed with a certain amount of aesthetic consideration in mind. My screwdrivers are part of a tool set that I bought, and they all fit together neatly into a decent looking case. I also bought a multi-tool for my bike A because it was light and B because it looked better than the others on offer. If the designer has put a bit of thought into how the product looks then I'm inclined to think that the build quality is going to be of a similar standard.
So you've never ever bought something because it looked good? Thank goodness people like you don't have their way all the time. The world would look like Soviet Russia if they did.
I'm just waiting for the day when the "reenact prohibition" assholes get enough power to try to make these things mandatory in all cars. After all, if it "saves lives", why not make everyone blow into the damn box to start the car, and at random times?
Because that would be stupidly expensive, unfeasible, and would punish the innocent as well as the guilty. But then you knew that already and are fully aware that nobody is suggesting that every single vehicle be equipped with one. You did know that, didn't you?
Insert obligatory "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap here too.
I see your "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap and raise you the obligatory "we don't need big brother taking away our personal freedoms and I'll drive on public roads and put peoples' lives at risk because it's my God-given right! Freedom! America!" bullcrap.
Lots of people have to work under supervisors who are total idiots. That doesn't give anyone the right to sabotage their supervisor or their company. What he did was basically blackmail: "Let me talk ot the mayor or I'll keep you locked out of your network." You can't let the guy off easy just because he happened to be harmless. Next time, you might not be so lucky.
True, but at the same time there's no need to throw him jail now, is there?
The Economist ripped the US a new one last week for locking up too many people, many of them non violent offences. It wasn't so long ago that people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, but we backed off from excess punishment (probably a little too far in some cases). But the United States the trend seems to be regressing thanks to grandstanding politicians and bloodthirsty voters who won't countenance even the slightest hint of being "soft on crime". With the way things are going, I truly think that the US will soon bring back public executions before long and will be indistinguishable from countries like Iran in how they deal with crime.
I sometimes wonder if perhaps government needs another wing,
an executive, a legislature, a judiciary and another wing(investigative?) with the job of (but not monopoly on)letting everyone know what the hell the other 3 are up to with as much protection from the other brances as they have from each other and as much power to root around in the others buisness as any wing of government.
it used to be that the citizens were good enough at that job but nowdays with the way the weak ones are getting stamped on for trying and the rich and powerful don't give a damn I think it would be better.
Sounds kinda like the BBC. They're funded by the TV license fee which is collected by a statutory body, they have a charter that is reviewed every so often, but in general they are kept independent of the government. Thatcher hated them, Blair was upset with them over the war.
Case in point: During the Falklands conflict one of the BBC news reporters, Peter Snow, talked about the number of casualties after a battle. He read out the figure supplied by the Argentines and the figure supplied by the British. He referred to the British as "them" and talked about them in terms of "if they are to be believed, and we think they are". The government was not impressed but he maintained his journalistic independence. Can you imagine an American news network doing that? They'd be too busy waving the US flag and cheerleading "our troops". Look what happened to Dan Rather and Bill Maher when they dared to suggest an alternative view.
Most of their material covers what other news sources have reported.
They do occasionally send "reporter|comedians" to the field.
The best examples of this are their coverage of conventions during national elections.
They do interview actual persons of interest.
Consider how far "real" journalism has fallen (most of it is also editorial and commentary).
The comedy news isn't that far behind.
John Oliver's reports from South Africa were pretty eye-opening during the World Cup. Local business people were banned from a large radius around the stadiums lest they profit from the tournament, and only the multinational sponsors of the tournament were allowed in to sell their tacky wares.
Dude, the universe is a big place. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to the universe.
"Dude?" "Drug store?" Please don't tell me they translated the Hitchhiker's Guide into American English!
I hate acronym abuse. Why can't people just speak fucking English? I mean, not even Google can decipher this post! Technology Services Industry Association? Twinkies? What the fuck are you waffling about?
The only customers that matter are the ones who advertise on the site. Everyone else is a viewer. As long as they go on viewing and clicking on ads, their opinions about a free service won't count for much. It's like griping about commercial broadcast TV. It's free to the consumer, all that counts is that the advertisers get their message out there because they are the true "customers" from a strict business point of view. The only thing that will make a significant change to the way these providers do business is anything that adversely affects their ability to get clicks or views on ads. Sad but true.
It's the traveling to Mars that makes me wonder how we're going to keep people shielded from radiation en route. I've seen the proposals and they look doable, but they'll significantly add to the complexity of the mission.
While it is easy to bash Faux news you can just as easily catch the same thing going on at NPR, BBC, CNN, etc if you are observant. All of them have money behind them determining how a story is presented, or if it is even presented at all.
No.
Fox News takes distortion of the message to a whole new level and is nothing like the other networks (except maybe for MSNBC, but even that's a stretch). They resort to blatant lying and falsehoods, and are unashamed political activists. To compare Fox News to NPR or the BBC is just another example of the "equal time to nutjobs" doctrine that channels like Fox News themselves employ. It is a slur on the good name of the reputable journalists who work in public broadcasting. Shame on you.
Two points here. First, that's a pretty broad brush you paint "religion" with there. It may be an accurate description of typical midwestern Protestant religion (who probably you encounter most often pushing the latest in Creationism) but many modern religions have a more sophisticated view on integrating with Reality than that. Even among Christianity, the Catholics are generally quite willing to consider evolution and the Big Bang - heck, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest! I won't even go into the eastern religions. A more nuanced perspective is in order.
Second, I think that the reason a lot of people react like that is, to take an example, the Guy With The Truth is typically perceived to be not just a guy trying to inform for the sake of Truth, but a guy who's got some ideological agenda to push including a whole suite of objectionable ideas, not just the one, so it's easy to dismiss his statements wholesale. He's probably not just interested in saying "the universe began this way and here's why; interesting, eh?" but he oh so often goes on to make snide remarks about religion and politics and possibly underlying cultural value systems. Just read typical Slashdot comments here and you'll find plenty of examples. Wrap the truth in a turd often enough, and people will think it's smelly.
Sorry, but the vast majority of religious people base their belief system on an unbelievably over-rated principle called 'faith'. Faith is wishful thinking, wrapped in circular reasoning, inside ignorance, and it is the cornerstone of religion which is inherently hostile to the facts. Catholicism may be a bit more flexible than most and is willing to beat a retreat rather than argue the facts, but the remainder of its belief system still relies on faith. The Catholic 'mysteries' are a prime example, little logical fallacies that are blatant contradictions but the flock are still required to accept them because "it's their faith."
Seriously? THAT'S the real problem nowadays? It's not climate change or world hunger or war, it's how we can move people around our dense urban environments as fast as possible?
Er, do you not think that the way we conduct urban transport might just have something to do with climate change?
Global warming denial is like creationism, it's based on blind faith and its supporters will never give up.
I disagree. Apart from the manufacturers of Jesus action figures, there's no commercial apparatus behind creationism which is really the product of crackpots. Global warming denial is a product of the petro-chemical industry, principally Exxon, and is pushed by people who are clever enough to know what's going to make a bit of money for them in the short term.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, this kind of thing happens all over the place.
Blacks in the UK talk no differently than whites.
Hahaa! You're all absolutely right! I stand corrected and I'll get my coat!
Did you ever notice how each new generation of cell-phone tech gets branded '3G,'
No. Especially since this iPhone 4G thing came out. It was in the news, you might have heard about it.
...no cell carrier is foolish enough to sell you bottom-line throughput like an ISP in 1996
Metro PCS? It's cheap, but I dropped every single call I ever made on their antique phones before I switched.
And only a few days ago I was pumelled by people with mod points for daring to suggest that the "slippery slope" fallacy might exist.
Have you ever bought a frying pan because it looked good?
Hell yes. When I'm entertaining a hot chick and cooking a seduction meal for her, I don't want her thinking I live in some sort of student house. My kitchen utensils speak of a bachelor pad that is occupied by a man who has his shit together. And I'm not the only one. Look at the amount of money people pay at Williams & Sonoma for designer toasters, pots, pans, and tea towels.
A hammer?
Maybe. If it looks cheap I'm less inclined to buy it. Plus, a certain amount of design effort goes into making them look good these days anyway.
A screwdriver?
No, but they all look pretty good these days anyway. They're all designed with a certain amount of aesthetic consideration in mind. My screwdrivers are part of a tool set that I bought, and they all fit together neatly into a decent looking case. I also bought a multi-tool for my bike A because it was light and B because it looked better than the others on offer. If the designer has put a bit of thought into how the product looks then I'm inclined to think that the build quality is going to be of a similar standard.
You get the point. :P
I'm not sure if I do.
What a retarded use of human resources.
So you've never ever bought something because it looked good? Thank goodness people like you don't have their way all the time. The world would look like Soviet Russia if they did.
The NHSTA, your government, wants them as mandatory equipment in ALL vehicles by 2013.
http://interlockfacts.com/
Is there any other fantasies I can disabuse you of? Santa Claus? Maybe the tooth fairy?
Well if a blog containing video clips from Fox News says it, then it must be true.
You forgot the word "yet."
I didn't forget it, just omitted it. That's because it's always included in a "Slippery slope" fallacy.
I'm just waiting for the day when the "reenact prohibition" assholes get enough power to try to make these things mandatory in all cars. After all, if it "saves lives", why not make everyone blow into the damn box to start the car, and at random times?
Because that would be stupidly expensive, unfeasible, and would punish the innocent as well as the guilty. But then you knew that already and are fully aware that nobody is suggesting that every single vehicle be equipped with one. You did know that, didn't you?
Insert obligatory "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap here too.
I see your "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap and raise you the obligatory "we don't need big brother taking away our personal freedoms and I'll drive on public roads and put peoples' lives at risk because it's my God-given right! Freedom! America!" bullcrap.
New York is just now getting these?
Wow, Alaska has had them for a while now.
Or is there something about this that I'm missing?
Probably the logistics of implementing it in a more populous state.
Hanging people in America who steal a loaf of bread would cut down on a lot of problems.
Thanks for giving me an example. That's exactly the kind of idiocy I was talking about.
Lots of people have to work under supervisors who are total idiots. That doesn't give anyone the right to sabotage their supervisor or their company. What he did was basically blackmail: "Let me talk ot the mayor or I'll keep you locked out of your network." You can't let the guy off easy just because he happened to be harmless. Next time, you might not be so lucky.
True, but at the same time there's no need to throw him jail now, is there?
The Economist ripped the US a new one last week for locking up too many people, many of them non violent offences. It wasn't so long ago that people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, but we backed off from excess punishment (probably a little too far in some cases). But the United States the trend seems to be regressing thanks to grandstanding politicians and bloodthirsty voters who won't countenance even the slightest hint of being "soft on crime". With the way things are going, I truly think that the US will soon bring back public executions before long and will be indistinguishable from countries like Iran in how they deal with crime.
I sometimes wonder if perhaps government needs another wing,
an executive, a legislature, a judiciary and another wing(investigative?) with the job of (but not monopoly on)letting everyone know what the hell the other 3 are up to with as much protection from the other brances as they have from each other and as much power to root around in the others buisness as any wing of government.
it used to be that the citizens were good enough at that job but nowdays with the way the weak ones are getting stamped on for trying and the rich and powerful don't give a damn I think it would be better.
Sounds kinda like the BBC. They're funded by the TV license fee which is collected by a statutory body, they have a charter that is reviewed every so often, but in general they are kept independent of the government. Thatcher hated them, Blair was upset with them over the war.
Case in point: During the Falklands conflict one of the BBC news reporters, Peter Snow, talked about the number of casualties after a battle. He read out the figure supplied by the Argentines and the figure supplied by the British. He referred to the British as "them" and talked about them in terms of "if they are to be believed, and we think they are". The government was not impressed but he maintained his journalistic independence. Can you imagine an American news network doing that? They'd be too busy waving the US flag and cheerleading "our troops". Look what happened to Dan Rather and Bill Maher when they dared to suggest an alternative view.
Most of their material covers what other news sources have reported.
They do occasionally send "reporter|comedians" to the field.
The best examples of this are their coverage of conventions during national elections.
They do interview actual persons of interest.
Consider how far "real" journalism has fallen (most of it is also editorial and commentary).
The comedy news isn't that far behind.
John Oliver's reports from South Africa were pretty eye-opening during the World Cup. Local business people were banned from a large radius around the stadiums lest they profit from the tournament, and only the multinational sponsors of the tournament were allowed in to sell their tacky wares.
>intuition that the Universe is a big place.
Dude, the universe is a big place. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to the universe.
"Dude?" "Drug store?" Please don't tell me they translated the Hitchhiker's Guide into American English!
TSIA
I hate acronym abuse. Why can't people just speak fucking English? I mean, not even Google can decipher this post! Technology Services Industry Association? Twinkies? What the fuck are you waffling about?
Sheesh!
The only customers that matter are the ones who advertise on the site. Everyone else is a viewer. As long as they go on viewing and clicking on ads, their opinions about a free service won't count for much. It's like griping about commercial broadcast TV. It's free to the consumer, all that counts is that the advertisers get their message out there because they are the true "customers" from a strict business point of view. The only thing that will make a significant change to the way these providers do business is anything that adversely affects their ability to get clicks or views on ads. Sad but true.
It's the traveling to Mars that makes me wonder how we're going to keep people shielded from radiation en route. I've seen the proposals and they look doable, but they'll significantly add to the complexity of the mission.
I admit that the first time I saw the Rupee symbol on the iPhone I thought I was looking at the symbol for the Yen.
Then you're very silly.
Seriously though, if you're confusing this thing with the Yen, the solution is very simple. See an eye doctor.
While it is easy to bash Faux news you can just as easily catch the same thing going on at NPR, BBC, CNN, etc if you are observant. All of them have money behind them determining how a story is presented, or if it is even presented at all.
No.
Fox News takes distortion of the message to a whole new level and is nothing like the other networks (except maybe for MSNBC, but even that's a stretch). They resort to blatant lying and falsehoods, and are unashamed political activists. To compare Fox News to NPR or the BBC is just another example of the "equal time to nutjobs" doctrine that channels like Fox News themselves employ. It is a slur on the good name of the reputable journalists who work in public broadcasting. Shame on you.
Two points here. First, that's a pretty broad brush you paint "religion" with there. It may be an accurate description of typical midwestern Protestant religion (who probably you encounter most often pushing the latest in Creationism) but many modern religions have a more sophisticated view on integrating with Reality than that. Even among Christianity, the Catholics are generally quite willing to consider evolution and the Big Bang - heck, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest! I won't even go into the eastern religions.
A more nuanced perspective is in order.
Second, I think that the reason a lot of people react like that is, to take an example, the Guy With The Truth is typically perceived to be not just a guy trying to inform for the sake of Truth, but a guy who's got some ideological agenda to push including a whole suite of objectionable ideas, not just the one, so it's easy to dismiss his statements wholesale. He's probably not just interested in saying "the universe began this way and here's why; interesting, eh?" but he oh so often goes on to make snide remarks about religion and politics and possibly underlying cultural value systems. Just read typical Slashdot comments here and you'll find plenty of examples. Wrap the truth in a turd often enough, and people will think it's smelly.
Sorry, but the vast majority of religious people base their belief system on an unbelievably over-rated principle called 'faith'. Faith is wishful thinking, wrapped in circular reasoning, inside ignorance, and it is the cornerstone of religion which is inherently hostile to the facts. Catholicism may be a bit more flexible than most and is willing to beat a retreat rather than argue the facts, but the remainder of its belief system still relies on faith. The Catholic 'mysteries' are a prime example, little logical fallacies that are blatant contradictions but the flock are still required to accept them because "it's their faith."
Seriously? THAT'S the real problem nowadays? It's not climate change or world hunger or war, it's how we can move people around our dense urban environments as fast as possible?
Er, do you not think that the way we conduct urban transport might just have something to do with climate change?
Global warming denial is like creationism, it's based on blind faith and its supporters will never give up.
I disagree. Apart from the manufacturers of Jesus action figures, there's no commercial apparatus behind creationism which is really the product of crackpots. Global warming denial is a product of the petro-chemical industry, principally Exxon, and is pushed by people who are clever enough to know what's going to make a bit of money for them in the short term.