Is there a more "proper" name for what you call framing? It's not called that in that list.
I'm pretty positive that framing is the correct term for this rhetorical device. It should be noted, however, that "framing" is a saturated word with different meanings depending upon the field in which it is applied.
I do understand that it's kind of devious, it seems pretty close to false dilemma but I don't think that fully captures the idea.
Indeed, framing can be used to lead to many different types of logical fallacies. A false dilemma is one of them for the reasons you stated. Another example could be denying the antecedent. Let's suppose that I were advocating the Think-Of-The-Children Act. Even if my intention was the welfare of the children, the framing of the discussion characterizes any opposition to the bill as not thinking of the children, which may or may not be true.
Of the top of my head, I can imagine that one could frame an argument to, at the very least, lead to these fallacies:
I suspect that someone clever could employ it in other ways too.
Unfortunately it's those who manage to define the terms that generally manage to win the argument. I mean, it's hard to counter the "cut and run" without being even more ridiculous, The Daily Show has played some ridiculous statements made by Democrats trying to counter "cut and run".
Yeah, while the Democrats certainly aren't above framing, Republicans truly are masters of it. I suspect that this is because many Democrats are adverse to arguing in absolute terms because of the more academic nature of their constituency, but that's just a guess.
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that nobody at the show noticed, either during creation or review of the show before airing.
Even still, I might be able to accept it as sheer incompetence, if it weren't for the fact Foley being a republican is a very relavent part of the story. If it were just some random politician being outed as a peadophile, there wouldn't be much to discuss beyond his resignation. However, much of the controversy involves the Republican leadership covering up and even allowing more (!) young pages to serve under him after they knew about the first incidents. Another part of the story is that Foley was a very high profile advocate of republican "child predator" legislation. And of course, there is the fact that we are only months before elections that threaten to take away Republican control of congress...
And then, to top it off, the mistake occured on the O'Reilly Factor of all shows, which is ONLY the most-viewed show on the Fox News Network. This is FNN's flagship show. They have the best staff with a great amount of attention to detail. A mistake of this nature is akin to Anderson Cooper cursing on segment of Anderson Cooper 360--it's highly unlikely that such a thing would ever make it to air by mistake.
Sure, GoogleTruth(TM) could, yes, figure out if Ted Stevens classic "The Internet is a series of tubes" is true or not, but what if I said something like "Abortion kills fetuses and embryos." While this statement is true, it sets the tone of the discussion in a way that ignores the other issues involved, such as the nature of the conception (e.g. rape, incest), the health/developmental state of the fetus, the right of the mother to choose what's best for herself and her body, etc. That is called framing a debate--and it's extremely effective.
Framing a debate can often boil down to the terms used themselves. A good example of this is the Patriot Act. What does that mean? Does voting against the Patriot Act make one... unpatriotic? And even if you agree with the provisions of the Patriot Act, what does increased homeland security/surveillence have to do with being a patriot?
This is what the GP was referring to as framing, and it IS NOT lying. It is, however, academically dishonest in that it is a form of a logical fallacy. I'll be very surprised if google can manage to catch this too, seeing as how most people are terrible at it.
Perhaps you grew up in this type of atmosphere and find it acceptable, but what you are describing, is in no way whatsoever 'reasonable'.
I have to agree. It's really kind of sad, though. The O'Reilly factor used to be such a good show, and I'm being entirely serious. This may be hard for you to believe, but there's a reason why he became so popular: he was good. Sure, he was mostly conservative, but he used to a respectable analyst that called it as he fairly as he could. In fact, I think if most people who dislike O'Reilly read his books, they'd probably find themselves agreeing with him more than they didn't.
Unfortunately, he sold out--ironically enough to the "media establishment" that he spoke out so boldly against in his books and previous programs... It's hard to say when, but by my observations it happened approximately six months or so before that sex scandal story became public. When it happened, though, the difference was night and day. All of the sudden, the hard-hitting stories disappeared and were replaced by the "child predator"/flag-burning tripe that characterizes our "news" these days. I can't even watch the show anymore, and this is coming from someone who used to have a "The Spin Stops Here"-doormat in font of his appartment.
Make no mistake; this incident was no accident. As others have mentioned, the O'Reilly factor is a pre-recorded flagship show. The mistakes that typically characterize the 24-hour news networks simply do not happen on these shows. I'm not one to advocate consipiracies, but somebody was definitely pulling the strings on this one...
There is much more incentive to rig the election process than to rig the polling process.
Ahh... but not if a significant number of people hear the words "scientific poll" and automatically accept what follows as holy words from the mountain.
The fundamental misunderstandings within the general public (and even among intellectuals) about the process and limits of statistical extrapolation only makes polls a more and more viable target for fraud. In politics, image is (almost) everything. Creating a false appearance of a rigged election could potentially be just as useful as actually cheating.
In fact, because of the nature of polling (less people/data involved) and the relative lack of security, it would be FAR easier to rig an exit poll than it would to rig an election. From return on investment standpoint, rigging a poll could be much more profitable, in terms of political capital, than rigging the election.
I also consider myself a political moderate, but I cry foul on one part of you post. Namely, that those who say things like "The Republicans may have some problems, but the Democrats are just as bad" are merely trying to rationalize 'their team's' failures.
I dislike the republicans greatly and, yet, often find myself posting arguments along those lines, but not for the reasons you suppose. I do so (which I should note: at the damage to my karma), because I feel that there is a lack of perspective on these boards that sorely needs addressing. Implicit in discussions about the next election or the government's failures is this assumption that the democrats are the answer to all our problems. That if only Bush weren't in office, that: 9/11 wouldn't have happened, the budget would be balanced, the response to Katrina would have been top-notch, the muslim world would love us, the economy would be going well, and so on. It's bullshit. Now, don't get me wrong, things probably would be better (it'd be harder to screw it up more than this crew has), but to assume that republicans are the reason for all our woes is both simplistic and unproductive.
I've heard this as an argument against accurate exit polls. Yet I've never seen any evidence or explanation as to why this might be true. Do you have any facts to back this up?
Honestly, it doesn't matter. He could have replaced that claim with "X-type of people don't respond to polls as often as Y-type" (which is almost always true) and his point remains.
Statistical extrapolation can be a wonderful, scientific tool when a couple basic requirements are met: representative, objective datasets and truly random methods. When pollsters and polls fail, it's typically because the analysis lacked these requirements. In many cases, adequately meeting the requirements is impossible. For instance, how do you objectively define people's views on a controversial matter? In other cases, pollsters just get sloppy. For instance, often during elections, pollsters are asked--typically by the ignorant media--to return results before the voting is finished (translation: non-representative dataset). Pollsters who aren't trained properly might also be inclined to interview some types of people more often than others. (non-random methods). And even if everyone involved does everything perfectly, (which itself is nigh on impossible for an operation as large as a national poll) something that everyone seems to forget is that there is still a chance of random error. Even if the p-value is.01 (it is usually.05), that still means that there's a 1:100 chance that the result is wrong due to random variation alone.
The bottom-line is this: the results from exit polling are never more valid than the ballots in the box. Because of the strict requirements proper polling requires, the problem is more likely to be found with the polls rather than the votes--simply based upon the difference in complexity of the math between the two methods alone. (This is one of the few times in history in which Occam's razor legitimately would apply.) Furthermore, if one is willing to accept the possibility of a rigged election (on the basis of the discrepancy, alone), then he or she must also be willing to accept the possibility of rigged polling, which--strangely--is something that nobody ever does.
"Dude, you are a coward of the worst kind. You think you aren't and make all sorts of justifications to do what you do but really deep down inside you still feel the sting of the towel on your ass and just want it to stop."
First of all, you're making a lot of assumptions about me that you shouldn't. I am not a pacifist. In fact, I've trained in different fighting styles since I was 13. If cornered, I'm not afraid of a good scrap. But you know what? I've honestly never had to all-out fight, because I don't let myself get in those types of situations. Secondly, I have never been physically bullied. Maybe I was just lucky, but I credit this to my growth spurt sophomore year in high school when I gained 30 lbs over the course of one summer. So, again, how about you drop your lame assumptions about me and address the content of my posts?
"Some of us don't consider fighting for the right to free speech an 'inconsequential confrontation'... Your argument makes no damn sense. You'll fight it in court? Like, what might happen after being arrested for exercising free speech?
Reading comprehension is a valuable ability that increases with practice. I suggest you begin your clearly long journey to mastering this skill by re-reading my posts.
A single person getting harassed by a couple TSA agents is more likely explained by the incompetence of the individuals involved than some elaborate plot to infringe on our right... to wear stupid shirts. There are more important issues that deserve our attention right now; hyperventilating on/. over this--yes--inconsequential incident is ridiculous.
Again, re-read what I said, the "Free speech zones" that we have during our elections are a travesty. The NSA call database is in clear violation of not only the spirit of the Bill of Rights but the actual amendments too. The level of corruption in Congress is absolutely shameful and telling of the biggest infringement of our rights of all (committed by democrats and republicans alike): a representative government for the people. Being a staunch civil libertarian, I could easily go on.
It's articles like this which stand in the way of real progress in the fight to maintain our civil liberties. When we make mountains out of molehills, we undermine the veracity of our other, legitimate claims. Furthermore, this really isn't about our civil liberties. It's just partisan politics in disguise. The democrats what to wrap themselves in the flag this next election and claim that they're the true defenders of civil liberties against the encroachments of Bush and his mean TSA cronies. And yet, democrats were the ones who fought so hard to get hate speech laws passed. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it... unless it offends a minority." So much for that...
It's such a scam. And I can't believe how many of you are falling for it.
I'd rather consider myself a realist, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact that you so quickly resort to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my claims leads me to some opinions about you too.
Listen, if you want to waste your time and energy fighting every inconsequential confrontation in your life, feel free. As for me, I've got better things to do than argue with every redneck I come across. If someone like a policeman harasses me I'll grin and take it, and then fight him on my terms--in court. Directly confronting these types of people is what they want; don't give it to them.
"If society was working correctly, even the dumb brutes that make up the TSA should be able to understand what they can and cannot do, and if they do things they aren't supposed to, they will be punished."
Well, we don't know if they were punished. In fact, given the bad PR this stunt has generated it's a safe bet that they have been reprimanded in some manner. Not that anyone seems to care about that before becoming hysterical about the incident.
"Yes, they have actually. Threat of force which stifles speech is infringing on someone's right to free speech."
But that's really not the point. Why aren't any of you rallying to my cause? Why isn't anyone claiming that some vast right-wing conspiracy is responsible for this infringment of my rights? My point was that this is far more easily explained as the overreaction of some knuckle-dragger at the TSA than a concerted effort to stiffle free speech.
As the reasonable people of the world, we need to pick and choose our battles. Is me not being able to wear my VT gear worth getting all upset over? No. Similarly, if you intentionally insult a meathead, don't be surprised when he oversteps his professional role (be that police officer, security guard, TSA screener, etc.), which he may or may not fully undertand to begin with (something which I suspect was the cause of that great one-liner in the article about free-speech being "out there"--that's seriously meathead-speak at its finest.)
Alright, so let me get this straight: A guy intentionally insults the meatheads that comprise the TSA then becomes surprised when they overreact in return and everybody cries a violation to our rights has occurred...
Haven't any of you been to highschool? Try going up to the average lineman of any highschool footbal team saying that the the coach is an idiot. By and large, the reaction won't be good. We need to accept that this is the nature of the meathead.
Sure you wouldn't THINK that insulting someone's institution would matter, and by all reasonable standards it shouldn't but that's your problem and why none of you can understand this--you're thinking too much. But to the kind of brute who'd work for the TSA, that kind of stuff definitely does matter.
Take me, for instance. I go to WVU's School of Medicine, but I did my undergrad at Virginia Tech. I absolutely CANNOT wear any of my Virginia Tech clothing around town because of the very reasonable fear that some idiot will start trouble. Have my rights to free speech been violated as a tried and true Hokie? It's the same thing...
So please, let's save our rhetoric and 1984 hyperbole for instances where it really applies, like, for instance, the caged "Free Speech Zones" that began under Clinton during the 2000 election...
"While it is in their interests to eventually carry over into alternative fuel markets, taxing the crap out of them to force it defeats the free market and ultimately ends up punishing the consumer.
Exactly what part of the domestic oil business is a free market? Only a small number of companies (which overtly work together) supply oil. These companies then receive rather large tax exemptions and federal subsidies to release gas at a lowered price. So much so that the CEOs of the major oil companies recently testified in congress that they don't even want these subsidies anymore. Then all of the distributers price gasoline (regardless of how cheaply they get it) such that gas station owners only make a few cents per gallon sold, which has the effect of preventing REAL competition at the consumer-level where it would make the largest impact.
My definition of a free and healthy market would not include: 1.)Collusion 2.) Price-fixing 3.) Heavy government subsidies. How does yours?
Unless you've got equally effective opposing nanotech, which I suspect there will be some research in.
The confusing thing about all of his "yogurt"-preditctions is that they are internally inconsistant. At first he discusses how electrically-active bacteria could be oriented in such a way as to design a computer. This is entirely reasonable and is, in fact, how animal nervous systems function. THEN he goes on to these ridiculous claims about bacteria hacking electronics after being released in air conditioning systems or infecting our brains and controlling our thoughts. (And I wish I were exaggerating here...)
First of all, this is internally inconsistant because removing the bacteria from their computing structures would remove their capacity for computation. Moreover, his claims don't address the fact that these bacteria would still be subject to the same growth demands as regular bacteria. Given that electronic circuitry is generally pretty dry and nutrient free, exactly how are these bacteria going to control electronics if they can't even survive? Also, how could these mind-control bacteria go unnoticed by the human immune system? There are only a few bacteria that are known to pass through the blood-brain barrier and these ALL result in INFLAMMATION (which stops the functioning) of the tissue. Lastly, even if one designed bacteria that were individually "intelligent," these bacteria would most certainly be unable to survive in the real world because they would be inherantly inefficient and uanable to compete with the normal microbal flora.
I can't speak for his other predictions, but judging by his fundamental misunderstanding about basic microbiology, I'm inclined to believe that they're bunk as well.
"It gets worse every day. I agree with almost everything you wrote, but you seem to imply the momentum downward has stopped. It hasn't. It hasn't even remotely begun to swing in another direction. There was thought it would change in 2004, but it didn't. We, Americans, have a chance once again in November to start turning this beast around. However, one day we are going to run out of opportunities."
Tell me you aren't naive enough to believe that our society's problems are solely of republican origin or that the democrats are the panacea, because they're not. In fact, it's clear you've fallen victim to the biggest lie of all: that elections are what decides the fate of our country.
I'm not necessarily referring to smoke-filled rooms when I say this either. Much of the problem is that there is momentum within our systems of power that prevents effective change from occurring (ex. term-limit legislation). In other cases, it is the system itself that causes the problem (ex. the elastic-clause of the Constitution). Again, like the GP said, we do ourselves a great disservice when we assume that someone behind the curtain is the single source of all our woes.
"I don't think intelligence is being selected against. I think what is being selected against is the desire to put of having kids or not have them. That's all."
Which is a good point, because the use of the term "selection" carries with it the implication that the trait is a result of one's genotype. For the most part, this is inappropriate when discussing the desire to reproduce. Using the term selection in this way is like suggesting that there is selection against hunger because hungry people die more often.
I don't think it's appropriate to apply natural selection or evolutionary theory to human populations, for the very simple reason that human behavior and reproductive success is, more often than not, unrelated to one's genotype. A more useful prism to view this issue through is sociology. Different cultures and sub-cultures, by definition, exhibit different behaviors, which of course applies to reproduction.
"The unassimilated' ness lasts one generation, if that. "
I don't think this is true at all--particularly when many immigrants actively seek (and are allowed to) to segregate themselves from their host populations. Look at the recent riots in France. Most of the rioters were second generation muslim immigrants.
The real question is: should ethnic tension and violence be surprising when the politically correct doctrine of multi-culturalism has cast assimilation as a profane practice?
Well, that begs the question then: Why did they send seeds to space? The interesting thing to do would be to observe those seeds growing in a micro-gravity environment. But they're just sending them up there only to... bring them back down?
Makes you wonder if the sattelite doesn't serve some other, undisclosed military purposes...
It is stupid, but the controller company has a point. Go to your local video games store and look for a used copy of Guitar Hero. They'll probably have one. Now, look for a used controller--you probably won't find one. And you almost certainly won't find a controller that's sold unpackaged in a brick and mortar store. Red Octane has effectively forced most consumers to buy the game both new and bundled. Shouldn't generic companies be allowed to fill this void?
But, back to the patent, what is the innovation in the Guitar Hero controller patent? Is the shape of a guitar patented? Is the color/key combination design patented? Aren't BOTH derivative by their very nature? And if the patent is that basic (guitar shape and/or key position and color), how IS a company supposed to design a controller that is functionally compatible with the game without infringing?
Does it constitute a monopoly? Probably not, but Red Octane definitely didn't have consumers in mind when they filed this suit. And I say this as someone who absolutely loves rocking out with their game.
The irregularities referrenced in the 200 and 2004 elections, however, appear to be a well planned and concerted effort by the extreme right wing to ensure thier agenda is enacted at all costs.
Okay... then where are the convictions of these perpetrators? Where are the confessions? Why haven't there been any indictments? How could an administration completely inept at all other times be able to pull off this massive fraud on a heretofore unimaginable scale without leaving hardly any evidence behind?
Sometimes they'll find whole papers, complete, intact, and ready-to-submit. I heard one story of a student who copied a whole essay from the Internet, but failed to actually remove the copyright notice before turning it in. Oy.
I did my undergrad at Virginia Tech which has this very useful service called filebox. It's an online storage site for faculty and students. You can probably see where this is going...
Well, one of my friends was grading a philosophy paper and came upon something interesting. From the beginning, it was clear that the student hadn't wrote it. It was only after a few minutes, however, that the TA knew exactly who did--himself! The cheater had turned in a paper that the TA had written years before when he was in the class! lol
As it turns out, this guy had figured out a away to hack into the filebox system and even do global searches for file/folder names. I guess he got caught up into the technical aspect of hacking the server that he never noticed the name on the paper, which is ridiculous in light of the fact that the TA has a distinctive East Indian name.
Excuse me? So it's alright for the US Government to ignore human rights entitled to prisoners of war through the Geneva Convention? Not according to the US Supreme Court.
First of all, all prisoners are entitled humane treatment (i.e. food, water, shelter, etc.). The application of Geneva protections for regular, honorable soldiers (the right to associate, organize, access to musical/exercise equipment, etc.) is the pertinent question at hand.
Secondly, re-read the court decision--or at least the article that you referenced. The court ruled that the administration alone could not interpret application of Geneva protections for terrorists. This does not mean what you think it means--that terrorists are inherently entitled Geneva protections. It only means that the administration over-stepped its bounds by making that decision.
If Congress decided to remove Geneva protections for terrorists, the court would be unable to object. If you wonder why this is the case, understand that the Geneva accords are a treaty and nothing more.
And I plan to keep it that way... Is it really worth selling control of devices you own just for a slightly better display? Any minor (I would argue barely perceptable) gains you might get from upgrading from DVI or component video are completely outweighed by the DRM-potential of the HDMI port.
Final note, time for bad analogy time - if anyone likens removing parts of a uri as an illegal act, think about stripping drm from an audio file - both involves bytes removed to have more raw access to the data (data that are not exactly given out).
Again, I'm not saying that what they did was illegal but probably unethical and certainly in poor taste.
Regardless, here's an analogy of mine that's actually true. I'm a medical student and in one of my courses there are small group sections that assign homework on a webpage. Later, after the group meets, a link to a.pdf with the answers to the questions becomes available. But here's the catch: each file is sequentially named. For instance, the answers to the sixth small group session would be "sg6_answers.pdf".
It's a good bet that getting the answers for future groups could be as simple as changing the appropriate number. Now, even if it isn't illegal for me to get access to the files, would it be ethical for me to download those files? And what would using such links have to say about me and my character? I suspect that sophistry about the nature of http or webservers wouldn't fly if I were in front of the dean or the academic council. Why do you think that is?
Webservers are specifically designed to serve up content that is *anywhere* in thier public webspace as long as there are no access restrictions on the content or directory that the content is in. A web application that suffers from an SQL injection vulnerability is not designed to give admin access to the application because someone knows some magic SQL code to put in a form field, that is a side effect of bad coding and not a designed function of the application.
It's poor design. An SQL injection attack works because of poor design, not a "magic code." Similarly, the webserver was clearly not designed the way the governor's staff intended. The only difference between the two is the complexity of the exploit.
Listen I agree that using a directory listing to get into typically inaccessable parts of the website is mostly a benign thing (though I have come across a directory listing with bookmarks to bank and eBay accounts before-userid/pass and all). But in the context of a campaign playing games with your opponent's webserver really is in poor taste and speaks volumes about the rival candidate's judgement and character.
To put this point to test, why did the accused download the files? Why didn't they just link the files to the media? The answer is, of course, because they knew the files weren't intended to be publicly available.
Perhaps the Governor's webmaster did this on purpose. Perhaps those viewing the page assumed that was the case. After all, the alternative is that the Governor has an incompetent webmaster and it would be irresponsible to assume such a thing if a reasonable alternative existed, right?
That's a bit of a stretch. The webmaster intended to make this--by all accounts--private information public? You tell me: is that really a believable assumption to make? Secondly, I find it hard to accept that the accused just innocently happenstanced upon this. If that was the case, why didn't they inform the webmaster? And if they did make the assumption that it was intended to be there, then why did they release it to the media? Afterall, it was already public from their point of view, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty positive that framing is the correct term for this rhetorical device. It should be noted, however, that "framing" is a saturated word with different meanings depending upon the field in which it is applied.
Indeed, framing can be used to lead to many different types of logical fallacies. A false dilemma is one of them for the reasons you stated. Another example could be denying the antecedent. Let's suppose that I were advocating the Think-Of-The-Children Act. Even if my intention was the welfare of the children, the framing of the discussion characterizes any opposition to the bill as not thinking of the children, which may or may not be true.
Of the top of my head, I can imagine that one could frame an argument to, at the very least, lead to these fallacies:
- hasty-generalizations
- begging the question
- straw-men
- equivocations
- and the no true scotsman
I suspect that someone clever could employ it in other ways too.Yeah, while the Democrats certainly aren't above framing, Republicans truly are masters of it. I suspect that this is because many Democrats are adverse to arguing in absolute terms because of the more academic nature of their constituency, but that's just a guess.
-Grym
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that nobody at the show noticed, either during creation or review of the show before airing.
Even still, I might be able to accept it as sheer incompetence, if it weren't for the fact Foley being a republican is a very relavent part of the story. If it were just some random politician being outed as a peadophile, there wouldn't be much to discuss beyond his resignation. However, much of the controversy involves the Republican leadership covering up and even allowing more (!) young pages to serve under him after they knew about the first incidents. Another part of the story is that Foley was a very high profile advocate of republican "child predator" legislation. And of course, there is the fact that we are only months before elections that threaten to take away Republican control of congress...
And then, to top it off, the mistake occured on the O'Reilly Factor of all shows, which is ONLY the most-viewed show on the Fox News Network. This is FNN's flagship show. They have the best staff with a great amount of attention to detail. A mistake of this nature is akin to Anderson Cooper cursing on segment of Anderson Cooper 360--it's highly unlikely that such a thing would ever make it to air by mistake.
-Grym
Not necessarily...
Sure, GoogleTruth(TM) could, yes, figure out if Ted Stevens classic "The Internet is a series of tubes" is true or not, but what if I said something like "Abortion kills fetuses and embryos." While this statement is true, it sets the tone of the discussion in a way that ignores the other issues involved, such as the nature of the conception (e.g. rape, incest), the health/developmental state of the fetus, the right of the mother to choose what's best for herself and her body, etc. That is called framing a debate--and it's extremely effective.
Framing a debate can often boil down to the terms used themselves. A good example of this is the Patriot Act. What does that mean? Does voting against the Patriot Act make one... unpatriotic? And even if you agree with the provisions of the Patriot Act, what does increased homeland security/surveillence have to do with being a patriot?
This is what the GP was referring to as framing, and it IS NOT lying. It is, however, academically dishonest in that it is a form of a logical fallacy. I'll be very surprised if google can manage to catch this too, seeing as how most people are terrible at it.
-Grym
I have to agree. It's really kind of sad, though. The O'Reilly factor used to be such a good show, and I'm being entirely serious. This may be hard for you to believe, but there's a reason why he became so popular: he was good. Sure, he was mostly conservative, but he used to a respectable analyst that called it as he fairly as he could. In fact, I think if most people who dislike O'Reilly read his books, they'd probably find themselves agreeing with him more than they didn't.
Unfortunately, he sold out--ironically enough to the "media establishment" that he spoke out so boldly against in his books and previous programs... It's hard to say when, but by my observations it happened approximately six months or so before that sex scandal story became public. When it happened, though, the difference was night and day. All of the sudden, the hard-hitting stories disappeared and were replaced by the "child predator"/flag-burning tripe that characterizes our "news" these days. I can't even watch the show anymore, and this is coming from someone who used to have a "The Spin Stops Here"-doormat in font of his appartment.
Make no mistake; this incident was no accident. As others have mentioned, the O'Reilly factor is a pre-recorded flagship show. The mistakes that typically characterize the 24-hour news networks simply do not happen on these shows. I'm not one to advocate consipiracies, but somebody was definitely pulling the strings on this one...
-Grym
Ahh... but not if a significant number of people hear the words "scientific poll" and automatically accept what follows as holy words from the mountain.
The fundamental misunderstandings within the general public (and even among intellectuals) about the process and limits of statistical extrapolation only makes polls a more and more viable target for fraud. In politics, image is (almost) everything. Creating a false appearance of a rigged election could potentially be just as useful as actually cheating.
In fact, because of the nature of polling (less people/data involved) and the relative lack of security, it would be FAR easier to rig an exit poll than it would to rig an election. From return on investment standpoint, rigging a poll could be much more profitable, in terms of political capital, than rigging the election.
-Grym
I also consider myself a political moderate, but I cry foul on one part of you post. Namely, that those who say things like "The Republicans may have some problems, but the Democrats are just as bad" are merely trying to rationalize 'their team's' failures.
I dislike the republicans greatly and, yet, often find myself posting arguments along those lines, but not for the reasons you suppose. I do so (which I should note: at the damage to my karma), because I feel that there is a lack of perspective on these boards that sorely needs addressing. Implicit in discussions about the next election or the government's failures is this assumption that the democrats are the answer to all our problems. That if only Bush weren't in office, that: 9/11 wouldn't have happened, the budget would be balanced, the response to Katrina would have been top-notch, the muslim world would love us, the economy would be going well, and so on. It's bullshit. Now, don't get me wrong, things probably would be better (it'd be harder to screw it up more than this crew has), but to assume that republicans are the reason for all our woes is both simplistic and unproductive.
-Grym
Honestly, it doesn't matter. He could have replaced that claim with "X-type of people don't respond to polls as often as Y-type" (which is almost always true) and his point remains.
Statistical extrapolation can be a wonderful, scientific tool when a couple basic requirements are met: representative, objective datasets and truly random methods. When pollsters and polls fail, it's typically because the analysis lacked these requirements. In many cases, adequately meeting the requirements is impossible. For instance, how do you objectively define people's views on a controversial matter? In other cases, pollsters just get sloppy. For instance, often during elections, pollsters are asked--typically by the ignorant media--to return results before the voting is finished (translation: non-representative dataset). Pollsters who aren't trained properly might also be inclined to interview some types of people more often than others. (non-random methods). And even if everyone involved does everything perfectly, (which itself is nigh on impossible for an operation as large as a national poll) something that everyone seems to forget is that there is still a chance of random error. Even if the p-value is .01 (it is usually .05), that still means that there's a 1:100 chance that the result is wrong due to random variation alone.
The bottom-line is this: the results from exit polling are never more valid than the ballots in the box. Because of the strict requirements proper polling requires, the problem is more likely to be found with the polls rather than the votes--simply based upon the difference in complexity of the math between the two methods alone. (This is one of the few times in history in which Occam's razor legitimately would apply.) Furthermore, if one is willing to accept the possibility of a rigged election (on the basis of the discrepancy, alone), then he or she must also be willing to accept the possibility of rigged polling, which--strangely--is something that nobody ever does.
-Grym
First of all, you're making a lot of assumptions about me that you shouldn't. I am not a pacifist. In fact, I've trained in different fighting styles since I was 13. If cornered, I'm not afraid of a good scrap. But you know what? I've honestly never had to all-out fight, because I don't let myself get in those types of situations. Secondly, I have never been physically bullied. Maybe I was just lucky, but I credit this to my growth spurt sophomore year in high school when I gained 30 lbs over the course of one summer. So, again, how about you drop your lame assumptions about me and address the content of my posts?
Reading comprehension is a valuable ability that increases with practice. I suggest you begin your clearly long journey to mastering this skill by re-reading my posts.
A single person getting harassed by a couple TSA agents is more likely explained by the incompetence of the individuals involved than some elaborate plot to infringe on our right... to wear stupid shirts. There are more important issues that deserve our attention right now; hyperventilating on /. over this--yes--inconsequential incident is ridiculous.
Again, re-read what I said, the "Free speech zones" that we have during our elections are a travesty. The NSA call database is in clear violation of not only the spirit of the Bill of Rights but the actual amendments too. The level of corruption in Congress is absolutely shameful and telling of the biggest infringement of our rights of all (committed by democrats and republicans alike): a representative government for the people. Being a staunch civil libertarian, I could easily go on.
It's articles like this which stand in the way of real progress in the fight to maintain our civil liberties. When we make mountains out of molehills, we undermine the veracity of our other, legitimate claims. Furthermore, this really isn't about our civil liberties. It's just partisan politics in disguise. The democrats what to wrap themselves in the flag this next election and claim that they're the true defenders of civil liberties against the encroachments of Bush and his mean TSA cronies. And yet, democrats were the ones who fought so hard to get hate speech laws passed. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it... unless it offends a minority." So much for that...
It's such a scam. And I can't believe how many of you are falling for it.
-Grym
I'd rather consider myself a realist, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact that you so quickly resort to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my claims leads me to some opinions about you too.
Listen, if you want to waste your time and energy fighting every inconsequential confrontation in your life, feel free. As for me, I've got better things to do than argue with every redneck I come across. If someone like a policeman harasses me I'll grin and take it, and then fight him on my terms--in court. Directly confronting these types of people is what they want; don't give it to them.
-Grym
Well, we don't know if they were punished. In fact, given the bad PR this stunt has generated it's a safe bet that they have been reprimanded in some manner. Not that anyone seems to care about that before becoming hysterical about the incident.
But that's really not the point. Why aren't any of you rallying to my cause? Why isn't anyone claiming that some vast right-wing conspiracy is responsible for this infringment of my rights? My point was that this is far more easily explained as the overreaction of some knuckle-dragger at the TSA than a concerted effort to stiffle free speech.
As the reasonable people of the world, we need to pick and choose our battles. Is me not being able to wear my VT gear worth getting all upset over? No. Similarly, if you intentionally insult a meathead, don't be surprised when he oversteps his professional role (be that police officer, security guard, TSA screener, etc.), which he may or may not fully undertand to begin with (something which I suspect was the cause of that great one-liner in the article about free-speech being "out there"--that's seriously meathead-speak at its finest.)
-Grym
Alright, so let me get this straight: A guy intentionally insults the meatheads that comprise the TSA then becomes surprised when they overreact in return and everybody cries a violation to our rights has occurred...
Haven't any of you been to highschool? Try going up to the average lineman of any highschool footbal team saying that the the coach is an idiot. By and large, the reaction won't be good. We need to accept that this is the nature of the meathead.
Sure you wouldn't THINK that insulting someone's institution would matter, and by all reasonable standards it shouldn't but that's your problem and why none of you can understand this--you're thinking too much. But to the kind of brute who'd work for the TSA, that kind of stuff definitely does matter.
Take me, for instance. I go to WVU's School of Medicine, but I did my undergrad at Virginia Tech. I absolutely CANNOT wear any of my Virginia Tech clothing around town because of the very reasonable fear that some idiot will start trouble. Have my rights to free speech been violated as a tried and true Hokie? It's the same thing...
So please, let's save our rhetoric and 1984 hyperbole for instances where it really applies, like, for instance, the caged "Free Speech Zones" that began under Clinton during the 2000 election...
-Grym
Exactly what part of the domestic oil business is a free market? Only a small number of companies (which overtly work together) supply oil. These companies then receive rather large tax exemptions and federal subsidies to release gas at a lowered price. So much so that the CEOs of the major oil companies recently testified in congress that they don't even want these subsidies anymore. Then all of the distributers price gasoline (regardless of how cheaply they get it) such that gas station owners only make a few cents per gallon sold, which has the effect of preventing REAL competition at the consumer-level where it would make the largest impact.
My definition of a free and healthy market would not include: 1.)Collusion 2.) Price-fixing 3.) Heavy government subsidies. How does yours?
-Grym
The confusing thing about all of his "yogurt"-preditctions is that they are internally inconsistant. At first he discusses how electrically-active bacteria could be oriented in such a way as to design a computer. This is entirely reasonable and is, in fact, how animal nervous systems function. THEN he goes on to these ridiculous claims about bacteria hacking electronics after being released in air conditioning systems or infecting our brains and controlling our thoughts. (And I wish I were exaggerating here...)
First of all, this is internally inconsistant because removing the bacteria from their computing structures would remove their capacity for computation. Moreover, his claims don't address the fact that these bacteria would still be subject to the same growth demands as regular bacteria. Given that electronic circuitry is generally pretty dry and nutrient free, exactly how are these bacteria going to control electronics if they can't even survive? Also, how could these mind-control bacteria go unnoticed by the human immune system? There are only a few bacteria that are known to pass through the blood-brain barrier and these ALL result in INFLAMMATION (which stops the functioning) of the tissue. Lastly, even if one designed bacteria that were individually "intelligent," these bacteria would most certainly be unable to survive in the real world because they would be inherantly inefficient and uanable to compete with the normal microbal flora.
I can't speak for his other predictions, but judging by his fundamental misunderstanding about basic microbiology, I'm inclined to believe that they're bunk as well.
-Grym
Tell me you aren't naive enough to believe that our society's problems are solely of republican origin or that the democrats are the panacea, because they're not. In fact, it's clear you've fallen victim to the biggest lie of all: that elections are what decides the fate of our country.
I'm not necessarily referring to smoke-filled rooms when I say this either. Much of the problem is that there is momentum within our systems of power that prevents effective change from occurring (ex. term-limit legislation). In other cases, it is the system itself that causes the problem (ex. the elastic-clause of the Constitution). Again, like the GP said, we do ourselves a great disservice when we assume that someone behind the curtain is the single source of all our woes.
-Grym
Which is a good point, because the use of the term "selection" carries with it the implication that the trait is a result of one's genotype. For the most part, this is inappropriate when discussing the desire to reproduce. Using the term selection in this way is like suggesting that there is selection against hunger because hungry people die more often.
I don't think it's appropriate to apply natural selection or evolutionary theory to human populations, for the very simple reason that human behavior and reproductive success is, more often than not, unrelated to one's genotype. A more useful prism to view this issue through is sociology. Different cultures and sub-cultures, by definition, exhibit different behaviors, which of course applies to reproduction.
I don't think this is true at all--particularly when many immigrants actively seek (and are allowed to) to segregate themselves from their host populations. Look at the recent riots in France. Most of the rioters were second generation muslim immigrants.
The real question is: should ethnic tension and violence be surprising when the politically correct doctrine of multi-culturalism has cast assimilation as a profane practice?
-Grym
Well, that begs the question then: Why did they send seeds to space? The interesting thing to do would be to observe those seeds growing in a micro-gravity environment. But they're just sending them up there only to... bring them back down?
Makes you wonder if the sattelite doesn't serve some other, undisclosed military purposes...
-Grym
"This is stupid."
It is stupid, but the controller company has a point. Go to your local video games store and look for a used copy of Guitar Hero. They'll probably have one. Now, look for a used controller--you probably won't find one. And you almost certainly won't find a controller that's sold unpackaged in a brick and mortar store. Red Octane has effectively forced most consumers to buy the game both new and bundled. Shouldn't generic companies be allowed to fill this void?
But, back to the patent, what is the innovation in the Guitar Hero controller patent? Is the shape of a guitar patented? Is the color/key combination design patented? Aren't BOTH derivative by their very nature? And if the patent is that basic (guitar shape and/or key position and color), how IS a company supposed to design a controller that is functionally compatible with the game without infringing?
Does it constitute a monopoly? Probably not, but Red Octane definitely didn't have consumers in mind when they filed this suit. And I say this as someone who absolutely loves rocking out with their game.
-Grym
So every District Attorney in the country is in on it now? Wow! Karl Rove really is good!
-Grym
Okay... then where are the convictions of these perpetrators? Where are the confessions? Why haven't there been any indictments? How could an administration completely inept at all other times be able to pull off this massive fraud on a heretofore unimaginable scale without leaving hardly any evidence behind?
-Grym
Sometimes they'll find whole papers, complete, intact, and ready-to-submit. I heard one story of a student who copied a whole essay from the Internet, but failed to actually remove the copyright notice before turning it in. Oy.
I did my undergrad at Virginia Tech which has this very useful service called filebox. It's an online storage site for faculty and students. You can probably see where this is going...
Well, one of my friends was grading a philosophy paper and came upon something interesting. From the beginning, it was clear that the student hadn't wrote it. It was only after a few minutes, however, that the TA knew exactly who did--himself! The cheater had turned in a paper that the TA had written years before when he was in the class! lol
As it turns out, this guy had figured out a away to hack into the filebox system and even do global searches for file/folder names. I guess he got caught up into the technical aspect of hacking the server that he never noticed the name on the paper, which is ridiculous in light of the fact that the TA has a distinctive East Indian name.
-Grym
Excuse me? So it's alright for the US Government to ignore human rights entitled to prisoners of war through the Geneva Convention? Not according to the US Supreme Court.
First of all, all prisoners are entitled humane treatment (i.e. food, water, shelter, etc.). The application of Geneva protections for regular, honorable soldiers (the right to associate, organize, access to musical/exercise equipment, etc.) is the pertinent question at hand.
Secondly, re-read the court decision--or at least the article that you referenced. The court ruled that the administration alone could not interpret application of Geneva protections for terrorists. This does not mean what you think it means--that terrorists are inherently entitled Geneva protections. It only means that the administration over-stepped its bounds by making that decision.
If Congress decided to remove Geneva protections for terrorists, the court would be unable to object. If you wonder why this is the case, understand that the Geneva accords are a treaty and nothing more.
-Grym
And I plan to keep it that way... Is it really worth selling control of devices you own just for a slightly better display? Any minor (I would argue barely perceptable) gains you might get from upgrading from DVI or component video are completely outweighed by the DRM-potential of the HDMI port.
-Grym
Final note, time for bad analogy time - if anyone likens removing parts of a uri as an illegal act, think about stripping drm from an audio file - both involves bytes removed to have more raw access to the data (data that are not exactly given out).
Again, I'm not saying that what they did was illegal but probably unethical and certainly in poor taste.
Regardless, here's an analogy of mine that's actually true. I'm a medical student and in one of my courses there are small group sections that assign homework on a webpage. Later, after the group meets, a link to a .pdf with the answers to the questions becomes available. But here's the catch: each file is sequentially named. For instance, the answers to the sixth small group session would be "sg6_answers.pdf".
It's a good bet that getting the answers for future groups could be as simple as changing the appropriate number. Now, even if it isn't illegal for me to get access to the files, would it be ethical for me to download those files? And what would using such links have to say about me and my character? I suspect that sophistry about the nature of http or webservers wouldn't fly if I were in front of the dean or the academic council. Why do you think that is?
-Grym
Webservers are specifically designed to serve up content that is *anywhere* in thier public webspace as long as there are no access restrictions on the content or directory that the content is in. A web application that suffers from an SQL injection vulnerability is not designed to give admin access to the application because someone knows some magic SQL code to put in a form field, that is a side effect of bad coding and not a designed function of the application.
It's poor design. An SQL injection attack works because of poor design, not a "magic code." Similarly, the webserver was clearly not designed the way the governor's staff intended. The only difference between the two is the complexity of the exploit.
Listen I agree that using a directory listing to get into typically inaccessable parts of the website is mostly a benign thing (though I have come across a directory listing with bookmarks to bank and eBay accounts before-userid/pass and all). But in the context of a campaign playing games with your opponent's webserver really is in poor taste and speaks volumes about the rival candidate's judgement and character.
To put this point to test, why did the accused download the files? Why didn't they just link the files to the media? The answer is, of course, because they knew the files weren't intended to be publicly available.
-Grym
Perhaps the Governor's webmaster did this on purpose. Perhaps those viewing the page assumed that was the case. After all, the alternative is that the Governor has an incompetent webmaster and it would be irresponsible to assume such a thing if a reasonable alternative existed, right?
That's a bit of a stretch. The webmaster intended to make this--by all accounts--private information public? You tell me: is that really a believable assumption to make? Secondly, I find it hard to accept that the accused just innocently happenstanced upon this. If that was the case, why didn't they inform the webmaster? And if they did make the assumption that it was intended to be there, then why did they release it to the media? Afterall, it was already public from their point of view, right?
It's lame. Admit it.
-Grym