Stop trying to look for facts, we all know that those things are for conspiracy theorists and crazy people. Since you seem to be one of those people you must repeat after me. "People holding power never lie", "People holding power never lie", and keep that up until you faithfully believe everything that an authority tells you.
*mumble* damn fact finders *mumble* whack jobs! I SAID NO QUESTIONS! *mumble*
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that if you are actively claiming a certain level of protected qualification, you should actually have it.
No, it's not orthogonal at all. I gave you the reason, and like any other argument you don't like you just pretend it was never presented.
The only way to ensure someone has "qualifications" is to register every identity. People that are disliked for their opinions can lose qualifications among other punishments, so we no longer have safe and open dialogue.
The current option allows readers to discern fact from fantasy. I read tons of fantasy from both the US and UK Government, and it's provable fantasy. Closing the door on anyone but them will make things worse, not better. If you want an example, where are the WMDs the UK and US bombed Iraq over? Those AL-Quaida terrorist training camps? Oh yeah, our Governments lied to us.
Lastly, your list of censorship you claim works DO NOT EXIST. They are completely fabricated and flat out lies. The only thing that has a bit of reality associated with it is Military activities, but that is not censorship due to opinions and something I'm not completely against.
Well, to be honest the last 40 years of US Journalism has been no better than the UK. That said, "The Press" is the only job that has an exclusive mention in the US Constitution. Journalism being bought out and monopolized has been our downfall.
What you neglect in your last sentence is that Journalism is codified in the US Constitution, which is highest Law in the land. (uncorrupted of course).
While surely there are many technically inept people who don't care, there are two distinct issues with the Samsung TV. The attempts to deflect blame don't change these two, and make Samsung look more untrustworthy.
1. Transparency - Burying the tidbit about sending your data to a 3rd party should not have happened. This should be a unique warning screen that a user must agree to before the service is activated. This leads directly to the main item, 2..
2. Always On - Samsung did something that even Apple lacked the balls to do, which is turn this on all the time. This is why full conversations can end up in third party hands, and not simply the example they keep droning as the only possible data "find me a tv show". "Always On" is validated by their documentation. Remember, this concept is for people that can't find (or are too lazy to get) the remote control.
I'd agree that you can't fix stupid! People that really don't give a shit deserve what's coming, assuming you notified them properly. Proper notification is not buried in the EULA 16X odd entries down. It's front and center and gets it's own mention _before_ activation. It is not hidden in legalese either.
TFA tries to claim that LG does the same thing, but what I found on the LG devices requires a user to push a button (not always on). Kinect we know is spyware, and numerous discussions here recommend yanking the power cord when it was not in use for this reason. PS3 and PS4 maintained (and made back a little) market share because of the security concerns with Kinect. Blah blah, it does not change Samsung it only points out other people we should also boycott.
In conclusion, any other company doing this needs to take the correct lesson from the feedback. Stop trying to bullshit people! Be transparent with the customers and offer flexible options to use the technology in an intelligent way. Simple right? Well, I won't hold my breath for a proper result because the more common solution today is to Spin it all with PR (which could be either Public Relations or PRopaganda).
Here is a summary of what should have been said. "Any system implemented poorly has the potential for abuse." That is all that needed to be stated.
What I read in TFA are three separate straw man arguments.
1. Critics of the government can use open data to make a case for cuts in government spending on public services, potentially leading to the privatization of such services and related assets.
No kidding? You mean if we see where our money is being wasted we may have a voice and speak out about it? Demand that a half dozen employees from GSA get terminated for having a million dollar Vegas party with a few buddies? We see that our military spending in foreign countries is an amazing amount of money and we demand that we either receive money from the countries we are protecting or pull out?
This is exactly the reason we should have open data. It's called accountability, and every citizen living in a country is expected to be accountable.. unless of course you are in a Government position right?
2. Private companies and individuals can leverage open data for their own benefit, to the detriment of others.
If the data released to the public is not scrubbed of personal data of course there is risk. We have the same exact risk today because for some idiotic reason people decided that things like Employee IDs should be the same as your SSN. Sloppy practices are a bad idea, open data just means that we better have some eyes making sure that what gets published is clean.
3. Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.
This one is completely baseless, and in fact I'd argue the complete opposite of reality (shocking, I know). Companies right now are making money hand over fist by paying for data. If it becomes public, even small entrants can play.
After reading the headline I was scanning for either the announcements of lawsuits or the mysterious death of Canonical executives. No juicy tidbits to investigate, just a broken summary.
I see the US Constitution bashed constantly in media, and occasionally here. You seem to hint at the same idea in your last sentence as well, but maybe I'm taking that wrong. The US was the best design in the history of Governments. Many compromises took place to enact it, but the idea was that it would be difficult to change (not impossible). We now have Politicians and Supreme court justices that believe the Constitution is a nuisance, and that is telling. Primarily that the US Constitution is still a thorn in their sides.
If we taught kids the history of the Constitution and all that surrounded it, we would be much better off.
One would think so, but our Government has gone way overboard in trying to spy on everyone all the time. This insanity goes way back, you probably know about the Clipper Chip. It's not new, and no they have not learned. The NSA has done some great things with Linux and Auditd, but at the same time completely broken public encryption on more than one occasion. CISPA (a slightly modified version) is back on the agenda and a few politicians are trying to fast track them.
No, they have not learned a thing. It is the same people in political offices over and over, which explains why they refuse to learn. They don't want to learn, they want more power and control.
Are we back to on-line discussions again now? If so, then I haven't proposed any general limitation on who may comment, only that when doing so people shouldn't be able to claim protected qualification or authority that they do not legitimately possess.
First, apology for the delay in response. Time does not always favor internet based discussions.
To the meat of it, the only thing I can gather is that you want to somehow ensure that everyone's identity is available and verifiable on every comment. That will still result in censorship, and in fact it already does create censorship. I'll argue that it's the worst kind of censorship as well, because it relies not on actions based on restrictions but generalized fear and intimidation.
If you wish to verify my statement, simply look at a place like China where the only way to post is with your true identity. People do not post anti-government posts because they will be jailed even if they disagree with a Government action. People do not post religious comments, because that will get them put in jail. They don't post that they are starving, have poor working conditions, or anything else that may reflect negatively on the Chinese government because they will be jailed. Currently people are forced to try and circumvent the system, which also lands them in jail.
If China is not a good enough example, how about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran.
In the US, we already have cases of people being fired for saying things that someone does not like. The UK has similar issues from what I read.
To your last point, sure people lie. Many of the guilty are currently protected, and that is where your last paragraph is simply false. In the UK for example, there was a child sex slave ring that was being covered up by politicians for years. We have many similar stories in the US. This is because journalists are censored, not because they can operate in the open. Again, you put the blame in the complete wrong spot. You are blaming a lack of censorship when it is exactly censorship at fault.
I can provide you with over 2,400 years of history to prove my case. I challenged you to provide just one example of censorship working, and you came up empty (again). So again, I think you have a delusion that you need to dispel.
I can only point you to the history of Ethics in Journalism. In simplicity, Journalists should police themselves in order to preserve Constitutional rights for the Public. The "print everything to make lots of cash" ethics is a relatively new phenomenon. You can read President Kennedy's "Zeitgeist" speech if you have doubts.
I read the same things, but was thinking much broader. The original cost of the turret at 1.4million does not translate into maintenance. How much did it cost to fabricate parts for example? Further, we have a crew of about 50 to fire the guns and man the turret, compared to 1 operator for a cruise missile. You gave a good number at 10K per round, and even if we say the cost included the propellent we are only skimming the surface of actual costs. How much for cargo ships to carry out ammo and powder?
Looking at something similar which I have a bit of direct knowledge about...
MLRS for example is cheaper than 155s. It's less man power to load up a new box of missiles than lug around 2 additional vehicles and the 155 gun. Shells may be individually cheaper, but the logistic support for a 155 is very expensive.
That said, I think the psychological impact of the 155 is greater. Under certain circumstances it's a far better weapon, and close enough to the cost of the MLRS that we support both in the US Armed forces. I don't believe that the Battleships were even close in cost, which resulted in their demise.
There is no Utopia anywhere in the world, never has been and never will be. Human nature prevents such a system. Sure, I think the majority would be up to share, but there is a minority of people that would take without contributing to society, and the other end of the spectrum would contain people that abused that system to get more than their share.
I honestly have no idea where you got that from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Then who do you propose be the arbiter of who can comment and on what topics? How do you propose that the system does not become corrupt like our allegedly free democracies? If you claim to want control, there must be a controlling entity.
Censorship can not be implemented without corruption, and though repeatedly attempted in history it has _ONLY_ resulted in damage to society. Never has censorship been implemented in a positive way, because it can't be implemented in a positive way.
That has nothing to do with the first amendment, that has to do with the other constitutional abuses. At least in the US.
The theory of our amendments is such that if a person is accused of a crime there should be no journalism which presents an opinion of guilt until the Jury has done it's job. If the Jury returns a guilty verdict Journalists can do what they wish. That is the theory at any rate, but like our First amendment the presumption of innocence is something from the past.
So you are not afraid to make up your own "facts"? I never called names, I said your argument was idiocy. Your statement was both irrational and illogical, and I demonstrated the point very clearly. You can change your argument as you wish from, but turning it into a "you called me names" statement is incorrect. Factually incorrect!.
So we are off to a great start with my last thought, but lets see..
What you are saying in very simple terms is that opinions and theories _YOU_ like should be treated as if they were facts. Any other theories, even those that use the same base facts for their conclusions are inferior to yours and must be censored.
That is the rational you have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. _YOU_ get to be the arbiter of "good" versus "bad" theories and opinions, or perhaps some Government agency that you trust to get your opinion from.
I further gave examples of where that has gone wrong in the past, and you simply ignored those like you did my demonstration that words are not dangerous. So you ignore facts you don't like, make up your own when you want, can't seem to differentiate between facts and non-facts, and you approve of censorship. Wow, it all becomes very clear.
I can't fix your delusion, but perhaps you can. Show me one period of censorship in history that has benefited society as a whole. Just one fact to back your opinion and we can discuss this further.
Repeating the same baseless opinion and making up stories will simply confirm my previous suspicion that you are just a trolling. Sure, you are free to keep repeating it but it won't magically become factual. I won't respond to trolling either.
Your first question is just idiocy, if you really care go read about censorship and it's dangers. Yelling "I KILL YOU" does not kill you, and yelling "EVERYONE KILL THAT GUY" does not make everyone kill that guy. Any claim that it does cause harm ignores facts. Maybe in your fantasy world magic words do exist, but to the rest of society we know better.
To your second part I gave a great example and you ignored it. You also can't seem to grasp the difference between facts and not facts, such as theory and opinion. Since you can't seem to grasp those differences everything else you state is useless recap of what you already said that I objected to.
It often happens when you let politicians and the corporate interests that sponsor them dictate the terms of the debate rather than subject matter experts
It also happens when attempting to regulate "expert's opinion". That regulation happened during the Dark Ages all the time. Governments and Religions are not run by scientists, they are run by people hoarding power in all of it's various forms. You seem to have a delusion that everyone in Government is altruistic, and I gave you some references so that you can prove it false.
The rest of the first world called and asked for their money back.
Bullshit! I'm not claiming the US is perfect, and surely not claiming that it's populace can't be fooled. We were fooled into a war in Iraq exactly because we lack 1st amendment protection in media. "Freedom of Speech" in the US is broken, and has been completely broken since the FCC ruled monopoly was fine. A ruling that was the result of regulatory capture by the way. Freedom of Speech in the 1970s got us out of Vietnam, and a lack of 1st amendment protection got us into Vietnam.
You are putting the blame in the exact opposite place. Try looking at things with a broad view.
No, there is no problem except in your head. What is the default browse number for comments? Newcomers are not inundated with the bad comments, they are shown the highest rated first post by time as a default. Below that sure, there may be some trolling rant about an ethnic or religious group, but people should already have a picture by the time they get that far.
Brian Williams is proof. Those damn people that proved him a liar blew it, he was one of the highest rated bullshit sellers on NBC for decades.
Oh, I know.. it's not like journalists are supposed to.. you know.. make a journal of their expeditions. They never write shit down or capture pictures.. so it was clearly "false memory" that caused the problem right?
I really hope you are not dumb enough to believe anything you are told by media, including that last line. Brian Williams had a job of selling war, and he did it well. That does not make him a journalist, and yes people need to speak out against the corruption. Even if most claims of corruption are bullshit, that protection must remain. Agent provocateurs do exist, and people are paid handsomely to generate false outrage (see Gamergate).
No! Speech is not dangerous. The only exception we could possibly argue is yelling "FIRE! Save yourself!" in a crowded theater. That is not dangerous in reality because of the words, it is dangerous because the cramped space and resulting stampede. Yell "FIRE! Save Yourself!" in an open field and people will wonder how mentally handicapped you really are. It is perfectly legal to look like an idiot.
You do not seem to have basic grasp of what science is, let alone politics or subjects that are purely opinion based on world view. Science, at least the majority, is an opinion based on facts. The more facts, the better the opinion. Those opinions change over time, sometimes using the same exact facts. Take the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory as an example, a theory which runs contrary to the more prevalent Big Bang.
You also completely ignore the possibility that a Government may provide false information for various reasons. Who watches the watchers? Oh, nobody because we can't even discuss unapproved opinion right? Only a government can be qualified to discuss government things in your view?
I have said this before and I'll say it again.
You can not prevent people from saying things you don't like, and the only way to learn to defend against bad arguments is to hear the bad arguments. You can only protect your ability to hear the arguments and defend your own opinion. If you are mute, that protection is gone.
Thank goodness for that as well, because if contrary opinions were silent the world would still be flat and lightning would come from some angry guy living in the sky.
Perhaps you missed the article yesterday where a prominent University proved that the FDA does not do it's job, it works for Agriculture and Pharmaceutical companies. Maybe you missed the fact that the NSA spying on everyone all the time did not catch a single terrorist event in the US, and no mass shooters were caught either (which I guess we could call not sponsored terrorism, and probably should given media's handling). Maybe you missed another prominent University study last year which determined that the US was no longer a democracy but at best and Oligarchy but at worst Fascism.
So the danger you are talking about is a two way street. The FDA approves things that a former advertising VP approves, not something that science approves. Science has no other outlet except for alternative sources. Or maybe you missed the fact that all broadcast media has the same owner, has been proven to lie to the public, and lacks credibility and accountability. Maybe it's hard to see that even Newspapers rely on the same corrupt government agencies for information because if the corrupt source is not used everyone yells "CONSPIRACY!" and nobody actually check facts.
People are fully capable of checking facts all by themselves. If they don't know to go looking, that's a different issue. That is exactly the first amendment here is critical. We can no longer trust our Government agencies, they don't give a fuck about the public they are supposed to look out for. It's been proven again and again. Give people the message and if they want to go looking for facts they can.
Nope, it's not perfect. Some shithead will always be able to post garbage. That is a risk that we have accepted for over 200 years because the trade off is not worth it. That is the only way it can work.
Yeah yeah, broken memory on the gun size but fixed now. The reports I read on why cruise missiles were cheaper is due partly to accuracy. 1.41 million for a Cruise missile, and frankly I can't find the cost for the 16" rounds. Weight, ammo, propellent, large crew to support, maintenance of the turrets and guns, all of that adds up to probably similar costs. The Cruse missiles are I believe safer for the crew as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop trying to look for facts, we all know that those things are for conspiracy theorists and crazy people. Since you seem to be one of those people you must repeat after me. "People holding power never lie", "People holding power never lie", and keep that up until you faithfully believe everything that an authority tells you.
*mumble* damn fact finders *mumble* whack jobs! I SAID NO QUESTIONS! *mumble*
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that if you are actively claiming a certain level of protected qualification, you should actually have it.
No, it's not orthogonal at all. I gave you the reason, and like any other argument you don't like you just pretend it was never presented.
The only way to ensure someone has "qualifications" is to register every identity. People that are disliked for their opinions can lose qualifications among other punishments, so we no longer have safe and open dialogue.
The current option allows readers to discern fact from fantasy. I read tons of fantasy from both the US and UK Government, and it's provable fantasy. Closing the door on anyone but them will make things worse, not better. If you want an example, where are the WMDs the UK and US bombed Iraq over? Those AL-Quaida terrorist training camps? Oh yeah, our Governments lied to us.
Lastly, your list of censorship you claim works DO NOT EXIST. They are completely fabricated and flat out lies. The only thing that has a bit of reality associated with it is Military activities, but that is not censorship due to opinions and something I'm not completely against.
Well, to be honest the last 40 years of US Journalism has been no better than the UK. That said, "The Press" is the only job that has an exclusive mention in the US Constitution. Journalism being bought out and monopolized has been our downfall.
What you neglect in your last sentence is that Journalism is codified in the US Constitution, which is highest Law in the land. (uncorrupted of course).
While surely there are many technically inept people who don't care, there are two distinct issues with the Samsung TV. The attempts to deflect blame don't change these two, and make Samsung look more untrustworthy.
1. Transparency - Burying the tidbit about sending your data to a 3rd party should not have happened. This should be a unique warning screen that a user must agree to before the service is activated. This leads directly to the main item, 2..
2. Always On - Samsung did something that even Apple lacked the balls to do, which is turn this on all the time. This is why full conversations can end up in third party hands, and not simply the example they keep droning as the only possible data "find me a tv show". "Always On" is validated by their documentation. Remember, this concept is for people that can't find (or are too lazy to get) the remote control.
I'd agree that you can't fix stupid! People that really don't give a shit deserve what's coming, assuming you notified them properly. Proper notification is not buried in the EULA 16X odd entries down. It's front and center and gets it's own mention _before_ activation. It is not hidden in legalese either.
TFA tries to claim that LG does the same thing, but what I found on the LG devices requires a user to push a button (not always on). Kinect we know is spyware, and numerous discussions here recommend yanking the power cord when it was not in use for this reason. PS3 and PS4 maintained (and made back a little) market share because of the security concerns with Kinect. Blah blah, it does not change Samsung it only points out other people we should also boycott.
In conclusion, any other company doing this needs to take the correct lesson from the feedback. Stop trying to bullshit people! Be transparent with the customers and offer flexible options to use the technology in an intelligent way. Simple right? Well, I won't hold my breath for a proper result because the more common solution today is to Spin it all with PR (which could be either Public Relations or PRopaganda).
Here is a summary of what should have been said. "Any system implemented poorly has the potential for abuse." That is all that needed to be stated.
What I read in TFA are three separate straw man arguments.
1. Critics of the government can use open data to make a case for cuts in government spending on public services, potentially leading to the privatization of such services and related assets.
No kidding? You mean if we see where our money is being wasted we may have a voice and speak out about it? Demand that a half dozen employees from GSA get terminated for having a million dollar Vegas party with a few buddies? We see that our military spending in foreign countries is an amazing amount of money and we demand that we either receive money from the countries we are protecting or pull out?
This is exactly the reason we should have open data. It's called accountability, and every citizen living in a country is expected to be accountable.. unless of course you are in a Government position right?
2. Private companies and individuals can leverage open data for their own benefit, to the detriment of others.
If the data released to the public is not scrubbed of personal data of course there is risk. We have the same exact risk today because for some idiotic reason people decided that things like Employee IDs should be the same as your SSN. Sloppy practices are a bad idea, open data just means that we better have some eyes making sure that what gets published is clean.
3. Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.
This one is completely baseless, and in fact I'd argue the complete opposite of reality (shocking, I know). Companies right now are making money hand over fist by paying for data. If it becomes public, even small entrants can play.
After reading the headline I was scanning for either the announcements of lawsuits or the mysterious death of Canonical executives. No juicy tidbits to investigate, just a broken summary.
I see the US Constitution bashed constantly in media, and occasionally here. You seem to hint at the same idea in your last sentence as well, but maybe I'm taking that wrong. The US was the best design in the history of Governments. Many compromises took place to enact it, but the idea was that it would be difficult to change (not impossible). We now have Politicians and Supreme court justices that believe the Constitution is a nuisance, and that is telling. Primarily that the US Constitution is still a thorn in their sides.
If we taught kids the history of the Constitution and all that surrounded it, we would be much better off.
I can dream can't I?
One would think so, but our Government has gone way overboard in trying to spy on everyone all the time. This insanity goes way back, you probably know about the Clipper Chip. It's not new, and no they have not learned. The NSA has done some great things with Linux and Auditd, but at the same time completely broken public encryption on more than one occasion. CISPA (a slightly modified version) is back on the agenda and a few politicians are trying to fast track them.
No, they have not learned a thing. It is the same people in political offices over and over, which explains why they refuse to learn. They don't want to learn, they want more power and control.
Are we back to on-line discussions again now? If so, then I haven't proposed any general limitation on who may comment, only that when doing so people shouldn't be able to claim protected qualification or authority that they do not legitimately possess.
First, apology for the delay in response. Time does not always favor internet based discussions.
To the meat of it, the only thing I can gather is that you want to somehow ensure that everyone's identity is available and verifiable on every comment. That will still result in censorship, and in fact it already does create censorship. I'll argue that it's the worst kind of censorship as well, because it relies not on actions based on restrictions but generalized fear and intimidation.
If you wish to verify my statement, simply look at a place like China where the only way to post is with your true identity. People do not post anti-government posts because they will be jailed even if they disagree with a Government action. People do not post religious comments, because that will get them put in jail. They don't post that they are starving, have poor working conditions, or anything else that may reflect negatively on the Chinese government because they will be jailed. Currently people are forced to try and circumvent the system, which also lands them in jail.
If China is not a good enough example, how about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran.
In the US, we already have cases of people being fired for saying things that someone does not like. The UK has similar issues from what I read.
To your last point, sure people lie. Many of the guilty are currently protected, and that is where your last paragraph is simply false. In the UK for example, there was a child sex slave ring that was being covered up by politicians for years. We have many similar stories in the US. This is because journalists are censored, not because they can operate in the open. Again, you put the blame in the complete wrong spot. You are blaming a lack of censorship when it is exactly censorship at fault.
I can provide you with over 2,400 years of history to prove my case. I challenged you to provide just one example of censorship working, and you came up empty (again). So again, I think you have a delusion that you need to dispel.
But how is it not a restriction on free speech?
I can only point you to the history of Ethics in Journalism. In simplicity, Journalists should police themselves in order to preserve Constitutional rights for the Public. The "print everything to make lots of cash" ethics is a relatively new phenomenon. You can read President Kennedy's "Zeitgeist" speech if you have doubts.
I read the same things, but was thinking much broader. The original cost of the turret at 1.4million does not translate into maintenance. How much did it cost to fabricate parts for example? Further, we have a crew of about 50 to fire the guns and man the turret, compared to 1 operator for a cruise missile. You gave a good number at 10K per round, and even if we say the cost included the propellent we are only skimming the surface of actual costs. How much for cargo ships to carry out ammo and powder?
Looking at something similar which I have a bit of direct knowledge about...
MLRS for example is cheaper than 155s. It's less man power to load up a new box of missiles than lug around 2 additional vehicles and the 155 gun. Shells may be individually cheaper, but the logistic support for a 155 is very expensive.
That said, I think the psychological impact of the 155 is greater. Under certain circumstances it's a far better weapon, and close enough to the cost of the MLRS that we support both in the US Armed forces. I don't believe that the Battleships were even close in cost, which resulted in their demise.
There is no Utopia anywhere in the world, never has been and never will be. Human nature prevents such a system. Sure, I think the majority would be up to share, but there is a minority of people that would take without contributing to society, and the other end of the spectrum would contain people that abused that system to get more than their share.
I honestly have no idea where you got that from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Then who do you propose be the arbiter of who can comment and on what topics? How do you propose that the system does not become corrupt like our allegedly free democracies? If you claim to want control, there must be a controlling entity.
Censorship can not be implemented without corruption, and though repeatedly attempted in history it has _ONLY_ resulted in damage to society. Never has censorship been implemented in a positive way, because it can't be implemented in a positive way.
That has nothing to do with the first amendment, that has to do with the other constitutional abuses. At least in the US.
The theory of our amendments is such that if a person is accused of a crime there should be no journalism which presents an opinion of guilt until the Jury has done it's job. If the Jury returns a guilty verdict Journalists can do what they wish. That is the theory at any rate, but like our First amendment the presumption of innocence is something from the past.
So you are not afraid to make up your own "facts"? I never called names, I said your argument was idiocy. Your statement was both irrational and illogical, and I demonstrated the point very clearly. You can change your argument as you wish from, but turning it into a "you called me names" statement is incorrect. Factually incorrect!.
So we are off to a great start with my last thought, but lets see..
What you are saying in very simple terms is that opinions and theories _YOU_ like should be treated as if they were facts. Any other theories, even those that use the same base facts for their conclusions are inferior to yours and must be censored.
That is the rational you have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. _YOU_ get to be the arbiter of "good" versus "bad" theories and opinions, or perhaps some Government agency that you trust to get your opinion from.
I further gave examples of where that has gone wrong in the past, and you simply ignored those like you did my demonstration that words are not dangerous. So you ignore facts you don't like, make up your own when you want, can't seem to differentiate between facts and non-facts, and you approve of censorship. Wow, it all becomes very clear.
I can't fix your delusion, but perhaps you can. Show me one period of censorship in history that has benefited society as a whole. Just one fact to back your opinion and we can discuss this further.
Repeating the same baseless opinion and making up stories will simply confirm my previous suspicion that you are just a trolling. Sure, you are free to keep repeating it but it won't magically become factual. I won't respond to trolling either.
Your first question is just idiocy, if you really care go read about censorship and it's dangers. Yelling "I KILL YOU" does not kill you, and yelling "EVERYONE KILL THAT GUY" does not make everyone kill that guy. Any claim that it does cause harm ignores facts. Maybe in your fantasy world magic words do exist, but to the rest of society we know better.
To your second part I gave a great example and you ignored it. You also can't seem to grasp the difference between facts and not facts, such as theory and opinion. Since you can't seem to grasp those differences everything else you state is useless recap of what you already said that I objected to.
I'm smelling a troll at this point.
It often happens when you let politicians and the corporate interests that sponsor them dictate the terms of the debate rather than subject matter experts
It also happens when attempting to regulate "expert's opinion". That regulation happened during the Dark Ages all the time. Governments and Religions are not run by scientists, they are run by people hoarding power in all of it's various forms. You seem to have a delusion that everyone in Government is altruistic, and I gave you some references so that you can prove it false.
The rest of the first world called and asked for their money back.
Bullshit! I'm not claiming the US is perfect, and surely not claiming that it's populace can't be fooled. We were fooled into a war in Iraq exactly because we lack 1st amendment protection in media. "Freedom of Speech" in the US is broken, and has been completely broken since the FCC ruled monopoly was fine. A ruling that was the result of regulatory capture by the way. Freedom of Speech in the 1970s got us out of Vietnam, and a lack of 1st amendment protection got us into Vietnam.
You are putting the blame in the exact opposite place. Try looking at things with a broad view.
I think the phrase you are looking for is an "appeal to authority"
No, there is no problem except in your head. What is the default browse number for comments? Newcomers are not inundated with the bad comments, they are shown the highest rated first post by time as a default. Below that sure, there may be some trolling rant about an ethnic or religious group, but people should already have a picture by the time they get that far.
Brian Williams is proof. Those damn people that proved him a liar blew it, he was one of the highest rated bullshit sellers on NBC for decades.
Oh, I know.. it's not like journalists are supposed to.. you know.. make a journal of their expeditions. They never write shit down or capture pictures.. so it was clearly "false memory" that caused the problem right?
I really hope you are not dumb enough to believe anything you are told by media, including that last line. Brian Williams had a job of selling war, and he did it well. That does not make him a journalist, and yes people need to speak out against the corruption. Even if most claims of corruption are bullshit, that protection must remain. Agent provocateurs do exist, and people are paid handsomely to generate false outrage (see Gamergate).
Down modding is not true censoring. People are free to browse at (-1) and I normally do, especially when I have mod points.
Sure, sock puppetry and other trickery can be used to quiet certain people and opinions, but that is not the same thing as silencing them.
That was exceptional!
No! Speech is not dangerous. The only exception we could possibly argue is yelling "FIRE! Save yourself!" in a crowded theater. That is not dangerous in reality because of the words, it is dangerous because the cramped space and resulting stampede. Yell "FIRE! Save Yourself!" in an open field and people will wonder how mentally handicapped you really are. It is perfectly legal to look like an idiot.
You do not seem to have basic grasp of what science is, let alone politics or subjects that are purely opinion based on world view. Science, at least the majority, is an opinion based on facts. The more facts, the better the opinion. Those opinions change over time, sometimes using the same exact facts. Take the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory as an example, a theory which runs contrary to the more prevalent Big Bang.
You also completely ignore the possibility that a Government may provide false information for various reasons. Who watches the watchers? Oh, nobody because we can't even discuss unapproved opinion right? Only a government can be qualified to discuss government things in your view?
I have said this before and I'll say it again.
You can not prevent people from saying things you don't like, and the only way to learn to defend against bad arguments is to hear the bad arguments. You can only protect your ability to hear the arguments and defend your own opinion. If you are mute, that protection is gone.
Thank goodness for that as well, because if contrary opinions were silent the world would still be flat and lightning would come from some angry guy living in the sky.
Perhaps you missed the article yesterday where a prominent University proved that the FDA does not do it's job, it works for Agriculture and Pharmaceutical companies. Maybe you missed the fact that the NSA spying on everyone all the time did not catch a single terrorist event in the US, and no mass shooters were caught either (which I guess we could call not sponsored terrorism, and probably should given media's handling). Maybe you missed another prominent University study last year which determined that the US was no longer a democracy but at best and Oligarchy but at worst Fascism.
So the danger you are talking about is a two way street. The FDA approves things that a former advertising VP approves, not something that science approves. Science has no other outlet except for alternative sources. Or maybe you missed the fact that all broadcast media has the same owner, has been proven to lie to the public, and lacks credibility and accountability. Maybe it's hard to see that even Newspapers rely on the same corrupt government agencies for information because if the corrupt source is not used everyone yells "CONSPIRACY!" and nobody actually check facts.
People are fully capable of checking facts all by themselves. If they don't know to go looking, that's a different issue. That is exactly the first amendment here is critical. We can no longer trust our Government agencies, they don't give a fuck about the public they are supposed to look out for. It's been proven again and again. Give people the message and if they want to go looking for facts they can.
Nope, it's not perfect. Some shithead will always be able to post garbage. That is a risk that we have accepted for over 200 years because the trade off is not worth it. That is the only way it can work.
Yeah yeah, broken memory on the gun size but fixed now. The reports I read on why cruise missiles were cheaper is due partly to accuracy. 1.41 million for a Cruise missile, and frankly I can't find the cost for the 16" rounds. Weight, ammo, propellent, large crew to support, maintenance of the turrets and guns, all of that adds up to probably similar costs. The Cruse missiles are I believe safer for the crew as well.