Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at
on
The Case Against Gmail
·
· Score: 1
the go-to response of people like you is to attack the author rather than the article
You should learn to read the "by" mention for each post AC, lest you look like an illiterate dumbass. I didn't attack the author or the article, I attacked the person making a piss poor shill call on someone else.
By pet store do you mean cleaning the bird shit off the windshields before using the squeegee?
Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at
on
The Case Against Gmail
·
· Score: 1
I did not bother to answer your question. I pointed to the fact that you claimed that the person making a claim that the author was a MS shill was a Google shill. Further, you claimed that anyone that modded them positive was also a Google shill. They presented evidence, you presented no evidence. Your question is not evidence that the person you claimed is a shill, is in fact a shill.
As to your question, take it up with Google support! It's quite possible that you are simply using it wrong. I have had GMail since day 1 of public release and don't have problems. I use it as an email service with no frills, no forwarding, no odd routing, no plugins, etc.. It has worked just fine as a regular mail account for me since the first day I used it. I use the web interface, which has recently gotten better with tab integration.
And no, I'm not a Google shill. I speak out on their violations of privacy, and don't trust them as far as I can spit. But that trust goes to all "free" services who all are pulling the same shit with customer data. I take the "Free" email for what it is, which is "free fucking email". I manage mail servers to perform tasks that I don't trust or expect of a "free" email service.
Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at
on
The Case Against Gmail
·
· Score: 1
I see what you did there! Someone says "Microsoft Shill" and provides evidence, so you say "Google Shill" with no evidence and that makes the first one vanish! What an amazing work of rhetoric, nobody will catch on to it!
Are you not glad that all of those crazy conspiracy theorists were just "crazy conspiracy theorists"? Sarcasm aside, while nothing is currently changing at least myself and others can say "Told ya so!" and watch more and more of the reality we were telling you about unfold.
For everyone now learning how bad reality really is, it may be worth making your own shiny new hat!
Outside of the obviously slanderous term this is not "Science". The guy pulled data which people input on genealogy sites. There is lots of biases here, because everyone wants to be related to someone famous and/or of historical significance. I can't tell you how many of the people on these sites claim to be related to famous people like King Henry or Napolean (I have met many). Funny that so few claim to be related to Ben Franklin who fathered 10 times the amount of children they had.
Lisa Cannon-Albright, a geneticist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, urges caution when using self-reported genealogical data. She has worked extensively with a large Utah genealogy database that is linked to some medical information. “Everyone wants to trace their family back to royalty,” she says. “For these giant pedigrees, we just don’t believe them beyond a certain date.” Cannon-Albright says that she cuts off her data at the year 1500.
It's also kind of pointless because as TFA points out, even if you assume the unlikely chance that the data is accurate what the hell good does it do?
For now, it is unclear how the huge pedigrees generated by Erlich and his team will be useful. Some scientists at the meeting expressed enthusiasm for the project, but were hard-pressed to come up with a specific experiment using the data.
But no matter what, this guy is now a "Hacker"....
Ahhh, the eternal "etc.". Used to pretend one knows about something while knowing nothing of it. Especially when everything before "etc." doesn't solve the problem at all, the "etc." gives scope to change goalposts later.
That specifically references theology and has nothing to do with any statement made by me. Or will you choose to move your own goal posts that you claim are movable by others? Probably the latter.
You yourself posted a "definition" of life from a dictionary. My liking or not doesn't matter, but life is surely "defined", according to some definitions of "defined". It is not scientifically defined, which I have been trying to impress upon you, but your skull seems impermeable.
Oh, more goal post moving by you. What a shock! You stated "life is a stupid word". I stated that it is trying to define an unknown so can only use properties in the definition. Are you going to claim that the word is no longer stupid and that the definition is now a precise definition? the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death when it has "conditions" such as "continual change" which can not possibly have a clear definition? You can't give a more precise definition either, because we don't know what makes "life" happen.
Then you make absolutely fairy tale and claim No, I am just amused at your level of confusion. You just said life is undefined. after you state that I gave the definition! Who the fuck is really confused here?
The way I see it is this: You believe life has no value and don't care to study it. Goody for you! Life to me has value, and I believe it should be studied. If you give yourself no more self worth than a turnip, great times for you to be away from a salad! I don't give a rats ass what you think about yourself. I give a rats ass that society does not need that mentality.
Back to my original point, you don't have to give yourself any self value. I don't care what you think of yourself. I do however think that until we know what life is, we should not claim to know it's value. We know how to end most lives, and that is a pretty sad state of education. We can burn books, not reproduce them. Yes, that is a valid analogy.
While your statement is correct, what I stated is also correct. CU took something that was considered bribery and made it perfectly legal. If I give your campaign a million dollars, or give you a million dollars to run for office what on earth is the difference? There is none. This is why it was illegal until CU legalized it, and it was restricted so that a person could not give incredible sums of money to a personal campaign.
You mean the Sarah Palin who was the VP on the McCain/Palin presidential campaign? That's not running for an office?
Palin received millions of dollars in campaign donations after she lost on the McCain ticket, for her to run for President. She didn't run, yet she traveled the country on that money. Look into facts dude, it's not what office she was running for that matters and your distorted view of what she _did_ run for is not relevant to my comment. It's the fact that she could legally take money given in campaign donations and spend it for living while not even running for an office.
Who is the one that has a distorted reality? You can't even ask for clarification if you are lost, you immediately jump to the ad hominem fallacy bandwagon.
According to the logic presented in TFA, birds as we know them would not have evolved without snakes.
I have a cat who is terrified of rubber snakes. Not kidding, we had to hide my kids toys when he was young (both him and the cat). The cat appeared to be very traumatized by simply seeing a rubber snake. Felines therefor would not have evolved without snakes.
The garbage that gets posted as "science" is at times astounding.
You are not even close on this one. Until CU campaign gifts were limited to people, and there were limits on those donations. CU gave a simple way to dismiss donation limits and made bribery perfectly legal. Look how Sarah Palin traveled with her family on millions of dollars of "campaign donations" and didn't even run for an office! It's not free speech and has nothing to do with free speech, it's called bribery!
Lets also look at some historical context. George Washington did not want to be the President. Most back then had no desire to be a Politician, they all had their own things going on and were pretty happy doing their own things. Politics didn't pay well and took lots of time. Term limits were instituted by people that didn't want to be in a public office.
So the changes we have seen are not just that bribery has become legal and that people can legally abuse the donations given. Another issue is that one of the fastest ways to become a millionaire in the USA is to get into political office. Look at what a Senator or Congress Member makes, and what they are given. Travel, Body guards, Housing, transportation, clothing, food, servants (maid/butler/gardener, etc..) and a better salary than the majority of US Citizens make. They can legally use insider information to invest that money and make more money, while you would go to jail for the same thing.
There is lots to fix in the Country right now, term limits should be high on the list. Limiting funding from private corporations and people should be another immediate change. It was not that long ago that gifts by corporations were illegal, period.
The point was that the systems were only invented once, but every CEO (and some politicians) have claimed to have invent these concepts over and over again, and people are stupid enough to believe them.
Mainframe = many users and departments on a system. Great invention
Desktop = single user system. Great invention
Grid/Cloud = many users and departments on a system. Not a new invention at all, it's using various components to mimic the Mainframe. The "system" is using different components and Operating systems now vs. then, but they are still trying to mimic the original system.
BYOD fits into either the "single device" or "connected to something" architecture just like today's PC.
If you try and nitpick the system, you will of course miss the analogy. The analogy is not about what is better, it's that it's not new.
This is only a portion of the problem. A bigger problem in my opinion is that scientists are putting out biased and bogus information to make money. Companies are paying huge sums to research groups that spin an opinion they want from data. Look at Global Warming, GMO crops/foods, and pharmaceuticals in general for starters. There is simply a bunch of crap being put out, and I see the majority of that being the only way a researcher can get a pay check.
If you follow the money, the initial grant money does not come from the journals. The grant money comes from private donations and politically determined pools of funding. If the initial data is biased and/or wrong, the publication will be biased and/or wrong also.
I'll go a bit further and also state that many people have lost their way with science. It is nearly impossible to have scientific debate today. So called scientists won't address concerns with GMO foods for example, they hop right to the ad hominem bandwagon. The same is true with Global warming.
In your examples above, there's a legal penalty if a court reporter fabricates what is said or ruled in a court room. There was no similar penalty for Plato or his contemporaries.
My example did not claim that a court reporter was fabricating information. Go back and read it again. It has nothing to do with a penalty, it is a very logical analogy of your claim that Plato owns the words and deeds of Socrates.
We only know of Socrates and his beliefs and actions through the filter of Plato and others (who had their own axes to grind) - even if Plato really were acting as just "historian"
Removing your opinion that every history has an axe to grind we have a statement that is absolutely incorrect, which is why I stated that you can verify through historical records. While countless written records were destroyed during various times in history, enough survived where Plato's are not the only accounts of Socrates. It is a well established fact that Socrates was put on trial for example, and his punishment was death for heresy.
(which I doubt incidentally).
Well then, I guess that you should also discount nearly every part of history where we only have historical accounts of people's words and deeds based on your "axes to grind" statement. Pythagoras, Ramses, Herod, and countless other historical figures must also be rubbish because of your _opinion_ that anything not first hand is false.
Many of Plato's arguments were presented as debates between Socrates and others of the time with Socrates winning the debate in question. Since when has one philosopher never disagreed with a second?
I removed the first sentence because this is simply you repeating your incorrect conclusion. From the remaining, if you study the Sophists it would make more sense to see why Socrates would debate. You would also see why it's important that Socrates could do so and win, you would know why Socrates despised the Sophists. You would also know that Socrates had a specific definition for Philosophers which the Sophists did not match. Lastly, you would know that it's not very uncommon for Philosophers to disagree and debate. Back then, those debates could last for days.
For example: If you were a Philosopher how long could you and I debate on the definition justice? Then, how long could we debate on the purpose of the same justice? How long then would we refine both our definition and use of the word through debate?
I'm not going to critique the rest of your writing, because it's all based on two false premises. Socrates not being a person and Plato not being a historian. You either ignore or are ignorant of written history during that era regarding the role of Philosophers and what the Sophists were. If you choose to ignore, discount, or remain ignorant of history to support your opinion I say that you are acting without reason and irrationally.
Your explanation does have some validity, it's too bad the poster you are defending did not present this option. My perception of them does not change, but you are cool in my book.:D
If you read TFA, you will see that the documents are not computer files but plain documents. Therefor no encryption would be possible. No, I don't expect journalists to invent and lug around "Enigma" machines, and I expect that public servants act within the same laws society dictates.
Since it's DHS investigating this is the highest level of corruption, and State Police should take control and arrest every officer involved. They can turn the Coast Guard members back over to the DOD for a court marshal, but the arrests should still need to be done.
Any judge reviewing the request to return data and permit warrants for arrest should note the facts. Here are the basic facts from TFA:
The search warrant was for illegal guns based on a "resisting arrest" charge back in 1986. The judge that approved the warrant should be reprimanded at a minimum.
The officers confiscated materials not related to guns, and not covered by the warrant. That is illegal.
Unfortunately most of the damage will be done even if they return the illegally confiscated documents. Whistle blowers have been exposed. For that reason, a civil suit should confiscate the property and monetary funds from every public official to ensure that the whistle blowers receive adequate protection.
If you want to start cleaning the shit out of the pipes, you have to start pulling on the hanging turds. When they feel threatened enough, they will drop on their own and start pointing to the assholes responsible.
That is not skepticism, at least not by any definition I would consider. That is pure subservience. Not intended as bias, but rather to show the mentality. "Thank you foh rapin my wife massah, she was a bad bad slave." comes immediately to mind. No, I'm not one "for" an "Uncle Tom" crowd at all, which is why I spoke against that line of thinking. Of course many will look at that and refuse that they are becoming "that" slave.
That line of thinking is worse than complacency, it's acceptance of corruption. When a Government employee breaks the law they are supposed to be subject to the same punishments as any other member of society. In my opinion, the punishment should be more strict even as these are the people that are given additional trust for performing public service works in addition to getting paid by the input of the public. I.E. You could receive a minimum sentence for theft, a public servant should get the maximum sentence every time.
How is it possible to accept that there are two forms of justice, one for you and one for them? While possible (as you demonstrate) it's completely irrational.
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text? Sounds like someone on the local newspaper who would ordinarily be writing the horoscopes and gardening news.
Wait a minute! You are implying it's the Journalists fault and not the Government's fault who illegally confiscated her materials? Either that or you are diverting the argument from the Government Employees breaking the law.
You should be ranting and raving to get Government Employees people fired and put in jail for breaking the law, not complaining about the journalists.
Are you happy that your tax dollars were just spent in illegal activities? Just not care as long as it's not you getting fucked?
information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Now when a person omits or defies reality (recorded history in your case) and repeats a message to further an agenda, it is propaganda. That is what you are doing by repeating a fabrication such as "we have the most educated populace is the history of this nation." or "The concept of states keeping the Federal government in check hasn't been relevant since the Civil War."
Claiming a person is fabricating information is not an ad hominem, sorry. Read a history book, I pointed out something factual. If it hurts your feelings don't fabricate information regarding history.
I realize that history and alternative perspectives to your own are difficult, so here is a nice start for teachers that are telling you that the system is broken and that the Government intervention is the problem.
The concept of states keeping the Federal government in check hasn't been relevant since the Civil War, which demonstrated why the concept was flawed in the first place.
The Civil War did not do away with the separation of power or the dissolution of States. I am tempted to resort to ad hominem here because it's not very difficult to see where you are fabricating history to suite a delusion, but I'll refrain and ask you to go study history instead of repeating propaganda.
As for education, we have the most educated populace is the history of this nation. The college graduation rate today is twice as high as the literacy rate was 1820.
When Socrates talked about a Republic, he was thinking of governing a city of about 150,000 people. Looking to him for answers of how to govern a continent spanning country of 300 million people is exactly the scaling problem GP is talking about.
That statement is absolutely repeating propaganda and has no reality involved. Absolutely no part of that is true except for the "college degree" numbers which is not a measure of education. Schools, even 2 year Colleges have become platforms to A) create debt and B) refine an uncanny ability to believe what you are told over actually thinking which gets instilled in public education.
Any "teacher" will tell you that the system is failing and made to fail by Government policy and intervention. Kids learn to take tests, not to think. We have at least 2 generations now with a majority that can't grasp a simple appeal to emotion fallacy, let alone debate a complex topics like creation, justice, or morality.
I chose Socrates intentionally, since he was the one that designed the Republic form of Government. The work is very complete and extremely well thought out. I have read thousands of other Philosophers who may touch on things like "what is justice" but not a complete work describing the why and how for a fully functional society.
I agree that teachings countering our materialism would be beneficial, but without looking at the complete picture we would most likely just be trading one form of abuse for another. Trading Aristotle for Machiavelli for example would not change the fate of society or the lives of the citizens.
When you say "Socrates stated", you really mean "Plato stated" since every word Socrates is alleged to have stated was recorded by Plato.
Let me give you a very brief history lesson, which you can easily verify. Plato wrote numerous books, and in addition to being a Philosopher he was a Historian. Socrates on the other hand was a pure Philosopher. Socrates refused to write philosophy, his claim was that without dialogue teaching Philosophy was impossible. Socrates claimed that writing is not dialogue, and therefor he dismissed it as an impossible method of teaching or conveying Philosophy. (Pardon the redundancy, it's intended for clarity and not emphasis.)
In both Plato's Republic and the Dialogues of Plato, Plato gives a historical account of Socrates words and deeds. Plato does not take any credit for the words or Philosophy and tells us in his writings that he was acting as a Historian for Socrates. Plato had numerous other works for which he does not credit Socrates as well, so there is no logical reason to discount Plato's own claim.
Given that information, claiming that Plato should take credit for the works of Socrates is like claiming that a court reporter should take credit for a witness's testimony or a judge's verdict. It's irrational to do so, if you really stop and think about it.
The only rational way a person could make such a claim, and I have seen this, is by claiming that Socrates never existed and that he was a pen-name or alter-ego of Plato. History dismisses this concept very handily, so making such a claim is simply false.
While I believe you were trying to show some pedantic interpretation, I also believe that if you stopped to consider what you were claiming you would see that it's incorrect (see the court reporter example).
Slashdot Mirror
the go-to response of people like you is to attack the author rather than the article
You should learn to read the "by" mention for each post AC, lest you look like an illiterate dumbass. I didn't attack the author or the article, I attacked the person making a piss poor shill call on someone else.
By pet store do you mean cleaning the bird shit off the windshields before using the squeegee?
I did not bother to answer your question. I pointed to the fact that you claimed that the person making a claim that the author was a MS shill was a Google shill. Further, you claimed that anyone that modded them positive was also a Google shill. They presented evidence, you presented no evidence. Your question is not evidence that the person you claimed is a shill, is in fact a shill.
As to your question, take it up with Google support! It's quite possible that you are simply using it wrong. I have had GMail since day 1 of public release and don't have problems. I use it as an email service with no frills, no forwarding, no odd routing, no plugins, etc.. It has worked just fine as a regular mail account for me since the first day I used it. I use the web interface, which has recently gotten better with tab integration.
And no, I'm not a Google shill. I speak out on their violations of privacy, and don't trust them as far as I can spit. But that trust goes to all "free" services who all are pulling the same shit with customer data. I take the "Free" email for what it is, which is "free fucking email". I manage mail servers to perform tasks that I don't trust or expect of a "free" email service.
I see what you did there! Someone says "Microsoft Shill" and provides evidence, so you say "Google Shill" with no evidence and that makes the first one vanish! What an amazing work of rhetoric, nobody will catch on to it!
Are you not glad that all of those crazy conspiracy theorists were just "crazy conspiracy theorists"? Sarcasm aside, while nothing is currently changing at least myself and others can say "Told ya so!" and watch more and more of the reality we were telling you about unfold.
For everyone now learning how bad reality really is, it may be worth making your own shiny new hat!
Outside of the obviously slanderous term this is not "Science". The guy pulled data which people input on genealogy sites. There is lots of biases here, because everyone wants to be related to someone famous and/or of historical significance. I can't tell you how many of the people on these sites claim to be related to famous people like King Henry or Napolean (I have met many). Funny that so few claim to be related to Ben Franklin who fathered 10 times the amount of children they had.
Lisa Cannon-Albright, a geneticist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, urges caution when using self-reported genealogical data. She has worked extensively with a large Utah genealogy database that is linked to some medical information. “Everyone wants to trace their family back to royalty,” she says. “For these giant pedigrees, we just don’t believe them beyond a certain date.” Cannon-Albright says that she cuts off her data at the year 1500.
It's also kind of pointless because as TFA points out, even if you assume the unlikely chance that the data is accurate what the hell good does it do?
For now, it is unclear how the huge pedigrees generated by Erlich and his team will be useful. Some scientists at the meeting expressed enthusiasm for the project, but were hard-pressed to come up with a specific experiment using the data.
But no matter what, this guy is now a "Hacker"....
Ahhh, the eternal "etc.". Used to pretend one knows about something while knowing nothing of it. Especially when everything before "etc." doesn't solve the problem at all, the "etc." gives scope to change goalposts later.
That specifically references theology and has nothing to do with any statement made by me. Or will you choose to move your own goal posts that you claim are movable by others? Probably the latter.
You yourself posted a "definition" of life from a dictionary. My liking or not doesn't matter, but life is surely "defined", according to some definitions of "defined". It is not scientifically defined, which I have been trying to impress upon you, but your skull seems impermeable.
Oh, more goal post moving by you. What a shock! You stated "life is a stupid word". I stated that it is trying to define an unknown so can only use properties in the definition. Are you going to claim that the word is no longer stupid and that the definition is now a precise definition? the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death when it has "conditions" such as "continual change" which can not possibly have a clear definition? You can't give a more precise definition either, because we don't know what makes "life" happen.
Then you make absolutely fairy tale and claim No, I am just amused at your level of confusion. You just said life is undefined. after you state that I gave the definition! Who the fuck is really confused here?
The way I see it is this: You believe life has no value and don't care to study it. Goody for you! Life to me has value, and I believe it should be studied. If you give yourself no more self worth than a turnip, great times for you to be away from a salad! I don't give a rats ass what you think about yourself. I give a rats ass that society does not need that mentality.
Back to my original point, you don't have to give yourself any self value. I don't care what you think of yourself. I do however think that until we know what life is, we should not claim to know it's value. We know how to end most lives, and that is a pretty sad state of education. We can burn books, not reproduce them. Yes, that is a valid analogy.
Bullshit. Bribery is still illegal.
While your statement is correct, what I stated is also correct. CU took something that was considered bribery and made it perfectly legal. If I give your campaign a million dollars, or give you a million dollars to run for office what on earth is the difference? There is none. This is why it was illegal until CU legalized it, and it was restricted so that a person could not give incredible sums of money to a personal campaign.
You mean the Sarah Palin who was the VP on the McCain/Palin presidential campaign? That's not running for an office?
Palin received millions of dollars in campaign donations after she lost on the McCain ticket, for her to run for President. She didn't run, yet she traveled the country on that money. Look into facts dude, it's not what office she was running for that matters and your distorted view of what she _did_ run for is not relevant to my comment. It's the fact that she could legally take money given in campaign donations and spend it for living while not even running for an office.
Who is the one that has a distorted reality? You can't even ask for clarification if you are lost, you immediately jump to the ad hominem fallacy bandwagon.
According to the logic presented in TFA, birds as we know them would not have evolved without snakes.
I have a cat who is terrified of rubber snakes. Not kidding, we had to hide my kids toys when he was young (both him and the cat). The cat appeared to be very traumatized by simply seeing a rubber snake. Felines therefor would not have evolved without snakes.
The garbage that gets posted as "science" is at times astounding.
You are not even close on this one. Until CU campaign gifts were limited to people, and there were limits on those donations. CU gave a simple way to dismiss donation limits and made bribery perfectly legal. Look how Sarah Palin traveled with her family on millions of dollars of "campaign donations" and didn't even run for an office! It's not free speech and has nothing to do with free speech, it's called bribery!
Lets also look at some historical context. George Washington did not want to be the President. Most back then had no desire to be a Politician, they all had their own things going on and were pretty happy doing their own things. Politics didn't pay well and took lots of time. Term limits were instituted by people that didn't want to be in a public office.
So the changes we have seen are not just that bribery has become legal and that people can legally abuse the donations given. Another issue is that one of the fastest ways to become a millionaire in the USA is to get into political office. Look at what a Senator or Congress Member makes, and what they are given. Travel, Body guards, Housing, transportation, clothing, food, servants (maid/butler/gardener, etc..) and a better salary than the majority of US Citizens make. They can legally use insider information to invest that money and make more money, while you would go to jail for the same thing.
There is lots to fix in the Country right now, term limits should be high on the list. Limiting funding from private corporations and people should be another immediate change. It was not that long ago that gifts by corporations were illegal, period.
The point was that the systems were only invented once, but every CEO (and some politicians) have claimed to have invent these concepts over and over again, and people are stupid enough to believe them.
Mainframe = many users and departments on a system. Great invention
Desktop = single user system. Great invention
Grid/Cloud = many users and departments on a system. Not a new invention at all, it's using various components to mimic the Mainframe. The "system" is using different components and Operating systems now vs. then, but they are still trying to mimic the original system.
BYOD fits into either the "single device" or "connected to something" architecture just like today's PC.
If you try and nitpick the system, you will of course miss the analogy. The analogy is not about what is better, it's that it's not new.
This is only a portion of the problem. A bigger problem in my opinion is that scientists are putting out biased and bogus information to make money. Companies are paying huge sums to research groups that spin an opinion they want from data. Look at Global Warming, GMO crops/foods, and pharmaceuticals in general for starters. There is simply a bunch of crap being put out, and I see the majority of that being the only way a researcher can get a pay check.
If you follow the money, the initial grant money does not come from the journals. The grant money comes from private donations and politically determined pools of funding. If the initial data is biased and/or wrong, the publication will be biased and/or wrong also.
I'll go a bit further and also state that many people have lost their way with science. It is nearly impossible to have scientific debate today. So called scientists won't address concerns with GMO foods for example, they hop right to the ad hominem bandwagon. The same is true with Global warming.
One more quick point, apology for neglecting it.
In your examples above, there's a legal penalty if a court reporter fabricates what is said or ruled in a court room. There was no similar penalty for Plato or his contemporaries.
My example did not claim that a court reporter was fabricating information. Go back and read it again. It has nothing to do with a penalty, it is a very logical analogy of your claim that Plato owns the words and deeds of Socrates.
We only know of Socrates and his beliefs and actions through the filter of Plato and others (who had their own axes to grind) - even if Plato really were acting as just "historian"
Removing your opinion that every history has an axe to grind we have a statement that is absolutely incorrect, which is why I stated that you can verify through historical records. While countless written records were destroyed during various times in history, enough survived where Plato's are not the only accounts of Socrates. It is a well established fact that Socrates was put on trial for example, and his punishment was death for heresy.
(which I doubt incidentally).
Well then, I guess that you should also discount nearly every part of history where we only have historical accounts of people's words and deeds based on your "axes to grind" statement. Pythagoras, Ramses, Herod, and countless other historical figures must also be rubbish because of your _opinion_ that anything not first hand is false.
Many of Plato's arguments were presented as debates between Socrates and others of the time with Socrates winning the debate in question. Since when has one philosopher never disagreed with a second?
I removed the first sentence because this is simply you repeating your incorrect conclusion. From the remaining, if you study the Sophists it would make more sense to see why Socrates would debate. You would also see why it's important that Socrates could do so and win, you would know why Socrates despised the Sophists. You would also know that Socrates had a specific definition for Philosophers which the Sophists did not match. Lastly, you would know that it's not very uncommon for Philosophers to disagree and debate. Back then, those debates could last for days.
For example: If you were a Philosopher how long could you and I debate on the definition justice? Then, how long could we debate on the purpose of the same justice? How long then would we refine both our definition and use of the word through debate?
I'm not going to critique the rest of your writing, because it's all based on two false premises. Socrates not being a person and Plato not being a historian. You either ignore or are ignorant of written history during that era regarding the role of Philosophers and what the Sophists were. If you choose to ignore, discount, or remain ignorant of history to support your opinion I say that you are acting without reason and irrationally.
Read TFA. The documents were not computer documents, they were physical notes on paper. They were also and primarily confiscated illegally.
Your explanation does have some validity, it's too bad the poster you are defending did not present this option. My perception of them does not change, but you are cool in my book. :D
If you read TFA, you will see that the documents are not computer files but plain documents. Therefor no encryption would be possible. No, I don't expect journalists to invent and lug around "Enigma" machines, and I expect that public servants act within the same laws society dictates.
Since it's DHS investigating this is the highest level of corruption, and State Police should take control and arrest every officer involved. They can turn the Coast Guard members back over to the DOD for a court marshal, but the arrests should still need to be done.
Any judge reviewing the request to return data and permit warrants for arrest should note the facts. Here are the basic facts from TFA:
The search warrant was for illegal guns based on a "resisting arrest" charge back in 1986. The judge that approved the warrant should be reprimanded at a minimum.
The officers confiscated materials not related to guns, and not covered by the warrant. That is illegal.
Unfortunately most of the damage will be done even if they return the illegally confiscated documents. Whistle blowers have been exposed. For that reason, a civil suit should confiscate the property and monetary funds from every public official to ensure that the whistle blowers receive adequate protection.
If you want to start cleaning the shit out of the pipes, you have to start pulling on the hanging turds. When they feel threatened enough, they will drop on their own and start pointing to the assholes responsible.
That is not skepticism, at least not by any definition I would consider. That is pure subservience. Not intended as bias, but rather to show the mentality. "Thank you foh rapin my wife massah, she was a bad bad slave." comes immediately to mind. No, I'm not one "for" an "Uncle Tom" crowd at all, which is why I spoke against that line of thinking. Of course many will look at that and refuse that they are becoming "that" slave.
That line of thinking is worse than complacency, it's acceptance of corruption. When a Government employee breaks the law they are supposed to be subject to the same punishments as any other member of society. In my opinion, the punishment should be more strict even as these are the people that are given additional trust for performing public service works in addition to getting paid by the input of the public. I.E. You could receive a minimum sentence for theft, a public servant should get the maximum sentence every time.
How is it possible to accept that there are two forms of justice, one for you and one for them? While possible (as you demonstrate) it's completely irrational.
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text? Sounds like someone on the local newspaper who would ordinarily be writing the horoscopes and gardening news.
Wait a minute! You are implying it's the Journalists fault and not the Government's fault who illegally confiscated her materials? Either that or you are diverting the argument from the Government Employees breaking the law.
You should be ranting and raving to get Government Employees people fired and put in jail for breaking the law, not complaining about the journalists.
Are you happy that your tax dollars were just spent in illegal activities? Just not care as long as it's not you getting fucked?
Just in case you missed reading another important book, here is the definition of propaganda.
propaganda
/präpgande/
noun
noun: propaganda;noun: Propaganda
1.
derogatory
information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Now when a person omits or defies reality (recorded history in your case) and repeats a message to further an agenda, it is propaganda. That is what you are doing by repeating a fabrication such as "we have the most educated populace is the history of this nation." or "The concept of states keeping the Federal government in check hasn't been relevant since the Civil War."
Claiming a person is fabricating information is not an ad hominem, sorry. Read a history book, I pointed out something factual. If it hurts your feelings don't fabricate information regarding history.
I realize that history and alternative perspectives to your own are difficult, so here is a nice start for teachers that are telling you that the system is broken and that the Government intervention is the problem.
The concept of states keeping the Federal government in check hasn't been relevant since the Civil War, which demonstrated why the concept was flawed in the first place.
The Civil War did not do away with the separation of power or the dissolution of States. I am tempted to resort to ad hominem here because it's not very difficult to see where you are fabricating history to suite a delusion, but I'll refrain and ask you to go study history instead of repeating propaganda.
As for education, we have the most educated populace is the history of this nation. The college graduation rate today is twice as high as the literacy rate was 1820.
When Socrates talked about a Republic, he was thinking of governing a city of about 150,000 people. Looking to him for answers of how to govern a continent spanning country of 300 million people is exactly the scaling problem GP is talking about.
That statement is absolutely repeating propaganda and has no reality involved. Absolutely no part of that is true except for the "college degree" numbers which is not a measure of education. Schools, even 2 year Colleges have become platforms to A) create debt and B) refine an uncanny ability to believe what you are told over actually thinking which gets instilled in public education.
Any "teacher" will tell you that the system is failing and made to fail by Government policy and intervention. Kids learn to take tests, not to think. We have at least 2 generations now with a majority that can't grasp a simple appeal to emotion fallacy, let alone debate a complex topics like creation, justice, or morality.
I chose Socrates intentionally, since he was the one that designed the Republic form of Government. The work is very complete and extremely well thought out. I have read thousands of other Philosophers who may touch on things like "what is justice" but not a complete work describing the why and how for a fully functional society.
I agree that teachings countering our materialism would be beneficial, but without looking at the complete picture we would most likely just be trading one form of abuse for another. Trading Aristotle for Machiavelli for example would not change the fate of society or the lives of the citizens.
When you say "Socrates stated", you really mean "Plato stated" since every word Socrates is alleged to have stated was recorded by Plato.
Let me give you a very brief history lesson, which you can easily verify. Plato wrote numerous books, and in addition to being a Philosopher he was a Historian. Socrates on the other hand was a pure Philosopher. Socrates refused to write philosophy, his claim was that without dialogue teaching Philosophy was impossible. Socrates claimed that writing is not dialogue, and therefor he dismissed it as an impossible method of teaching or conveying Philosophy. (Pardon the redundancy, it's intended for clarity and not emphasis.)
In both Plato's Republic and the Dialogues of Plato, Plato gives a historical account of Socrates words and deeds. Plato does not take any credit for the words or Philosophy and tells us in his writings that he was acting as a Historian for Socrates. Plato had numerous other works for which he does not credit Socrates as well, so there is no logical reason to discount Plato's own claim.
Given that information, claiming that Plato should take credit for the works of Socrates is like claiming that a court reporter should take credit for a witness's testimony or a judge's verdict. It's irrational to do so, if you really stop and think about it.
The only rational way a person could make such a claim, and I have seen this, is by claiming that Socrates never existed and that he was a pen-name or alter-ego of Plato. History dismisses this concept very handily, so making such a claim is simply false.
While I believe you were trying to show some pedantic interpretation, I also believe that if you stopped to consider what you were claiming you would see that it's incorrect (see the court reporter example).