An example that would fit is that you know your friend bought a gun legally. That is the end of your knowledge. Suddenly the Police show up because your friend committed armed robbery. You were implicated because you had knowledge of the gun, and no knowledge of the crime.
An even better example would be this. You know your friend bought a motorcycle. The police show up and arrest you because your friend committed vehicular homicide.
There is a huge difference between knowing someone owns a legal device (in which a car can be a murder weapon) and knowing that they intent to use it for criminal purposes at some point in the future.
Don't confuse my example with your friend buying a gun and telling you he was going to rob a bank.
For this to happen, we would need to change our whole judicial view point which requires intent (mens rea). Either that, or negligence needs to become so broad that everyone is a criminal all the time. Negligence requires a common sense factor that you knew ahead of time that something could happen. Yelling "Fire" is a great example of the application in a sane system. Unfortunately we have not been sane for quite some time.
Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.
Quoting my favorite Philosopher, Socrates: "Justice can not be gained by an unjust system. The two ideas contradict each other."
But that's not the debate is it? Most people here are smart enough to know that neither side is the good guy, the debate is about whether action should occur to limit the impact of chemical weapons usage against civilians by the Assad regime. Other wrongdoing by either side is pretty much irrelevant to that. That's why your viewpoint comes across as one-sided, because you're painting the FSA as bad with all sorts of irrelevancies without giving the regime the same treatment before addressing the underlying issue - talk about poisoning the well.
As mentioned previously, this is intentioned as the US Media is painting them as innocent victims with no way of using Chemical weapons. You do the same, even to the point of claiming that they can't deliver CWs. That claim is absolute shite, and no I won't put that in a "nice" statement. Artillery and remote detonations do not require high levels of sophistication. You made an absolutely false assertion. When it comes to last week, I stated that we need to fact find and not assume it was Assad. You claim without any evidence (just like US propaganda) that it must have been Assad. That assumption is not fact based, and not based in history.
I do like however, that you dropped the UN findings in March from your argument because those facts hurt your belief that it must be Assad using CWs. How considerate of you to be so selective with facts.
Right, and that's why we have nukes, because we're going to actually use them? Most WMDs are EOL'd without ever being used as they're first and foremost a deterrent or bargaining chip.
While this may be _YOUR_ opinion, this is not the opinion of US foreign policy or any recent administration. We threaten Iran because they are trying to gain nuclear capabilities under the assumption that they will be nuking us and our allies. Do I really have to point out all of the foreign policy we have regarding this exact foreign policy?
And lets be clear about three salient points here. 1) I'm not questioning _your_ opinion on these subjects, I'm questioning the US foreign policy and administrations opinion. 2) I am pointing out, very intentionally, the media's one sided nature, not claiming _you_ don't know things outside of what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are telling people. 3) I have never claimed Assad was a good guy, nor is that the intent. Looking at Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... we obviously lack answers for what to do when a bad guy is removed and how to help the citizens of those countries.
You're both speculating and going off on a wild tangent again - Assad's forces have also committed mass atrocities and kidnappings.
Assad has not attacked UN forces, and the FSA has. Not just once on accident, but numerous times very intentionally. Is it more likely that the FSA shot at UN people, or Assad given that fact? You assumed that it was Assad, which defies verifiable historical events. Then have the audacity of claiming it's me on a wild tangent? Wow dude (or dudette), this requires delusion on a level that is difficult to comprehend.
Your example of the US and weapons inspectors makes no sense as Assad's forces do not control the area of the attack. There are a number of images doing the rounds in today's news of the rebels escorting the UN team around which highlights this is very much a rebel controlled area and that the rebels very much want them there and want to protect them and ensure they can do what they need to do.
You do realize that the US has been monitoring every CW depot in Syria for over a year correct? So what you are claiming is twisted reasoning. There would, and should be, two parts to the inspection. 1) investigating the target area, and 2) investigating CW housing facilities for recent activity.
If you don't get that, why would the US claim "Assad can clean up"? You do realize that you have spent rounds and traces of activit
Your post is an example of confirmation bias, you're only seeing what you want to see. The fact is the situation is far less straightforward than your post implies:
Since I am presenting an alternative view to what we are getting from most US News sources, the label of "one sided" seems to be poisoning the well.
"2. December, FSA rebels posted Youtube videos of home made chemical agents killing rabbits."
Can't say I've ever heard about this but what exactly does it prove? Simply that some rebels were experimenting with chemical weapons along with all the other home made weapons they've created? Great, but it's no proof of usage in actual combat or even effectiveness of chemicals against humans.
I never claim it's proof. The obvious reason to show this is to break the common illusion that the FSA are innocent victims in the use of chemical weapons. I could have also listed numerous atrocities the FSA has been committing against Christians, Jews, and Children. I didn't because A) The basis for the US attacking is a claim that the Assad regime used chemical weapons and B) Without facts those would simply be appeal to emotion arguments.
"3. December, German hacker broke into a UK military contractors email and found messages stating roughly the US and UK are paying enormous funds for us to sneak CWs into Syria, use a CW shell from Libya of Russian make similar to what Assad would have, and blow it up. Experts have determined that the emails look to be legit."
I've encountered this before though afaik it was a Malaysian hacker not that it makes a difference either way. I don't think "experts" can determine anything much, an e-mail is so trivially possible to make look legit it's meaningless, all they can really say is that there were no mistakes made in making it look legit, but seeing as a simple checklist is enough to avoid that then I don't know that it matters. Even taking the assumption that it was legit then it's not a smoking gun because it provides no verifiable evidence that anything concrete ever came of it.
Email verification is not just a visual inspection of messages. If you were correct that nothing can be gained then Snowden and Manning should not be in jail because email could have been forged right? We have forensics for a reason, and if we hold some to a standard then all should be held to a similar standard. Since it is "possible" to forge emails most forensics experts will not claim absolute proof. That said, a forensics expert would look at date stamps, originating addresses, then correlate that with a persons location. It is wrong to do as you did, in implying that it's impossible to use as evidence or that it's easy to forge email communications. (One message would be easy to forge, a conversation becomes an ordeal rather quickly).
"4. February chemical weapons were claimed to be used. The UN determined in March that it was the FSA using these weapons. Interestingly, the US claims contrary to the UN without evidence. Of course the war drum banging was minimized by media, perhaps too close to the emails suggesting false flag?"
This particular comment is painfully one-sided. The UN didn't determine anything. Russia, Assad's close ally made the claim that they had irrefutable proof that the FSA had used chemical weapons in response to evidence provided by the US and others (including independent organisations such as human rights and medical charities) that the Syrian military had used chemical weapons. Effectively it was a he-said she-said, but most definitely wasn't the one-sided no-doubt about it FSA only used chemical weapons scenario you're claiming. At best if reports are all assumed to be true then both sides made small-scale usage of chemical weapons though the problem is the Russian evidence is least credible because it could only come from one source, the Assad regime itself, and was not backed by independent third party source
The FSA winning has a high probability of ending up like Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc... I personally do t think thing are going well in any of those places, neither do the majority of theit citizens.
Thanks for digging, I simply lacked the time to track down all the sources. Nearly everything should be easy enough to find in a search engine. The hard one is Britam emails, which I have been hunting for when I have time today.
No wonder you post anonymously, good lord you are nothing but a string of fallacy. Yeah, because the only news Americans have access to is CBS, NBC or ABC or CNN. Thats it. The majority of Americans get their news from exclusively those sources. Your sarcasm is a fallacy, because I never stated that it was the only way people "could" get News and specifically pointed to alternative sources which do not have or receive air time on TV. Recently however, RT has been popping up on some systems. For the 2 months it has been on Comcast in the SF Bay area, it shows "Lease" in the title so most people would not know to look for alternative News there.
For your middle paragraph, you lumped yourself into "We're all" and not myself. Yet another string of fallacy, thanks for playing "I have a Red Herring!"
Oh, and by the way, the american public is overwhelmingly against any military involvement in Syria. But that must no be true cause I got it from CNN.
Ahh, more fallacy and partial fact to back your offense that US Media has become anything but "Journalism" in Broadcast News (and even some print "News" is force fed by the Govt [ see whistle blowers regarding the NY Post ]). Those number change drastically if the people are convinced Assad has used chemical weapons. But hell, we probably should not let any facts get into your cowardly anonymous rant should we?
Naw, don't bother answering any questions since they were purely rhetorical.
I mostly agree with you. Where I disagree is that without alternative sources lifting the curtain of propaganda is extremely difficult. Why do you think China tries so hard to control everything their people hear and read?
It's hard to call the public dumb when they are intentionally misinformed. In the US, we used to poke fun at the poor Russians and how they were misinformed by the Pravda. Today, our corporate owned monopoly of media does the same things we used to despise the Pravda for.
The hard part is breaking people out of the cave and teaching them to see delusion. I think that it's becoming easier today, because the propaganda has become so obvious. In addition, the internet has given a way for independent media to work outside of the corporate owned media.
The clock used is the Google server receiving the file, not the client's clock. Possible? Sure. Probable? No.
The point was not that everything is wrong, but rather enough is wrong that we should be investigating much more and not rushing to believe what the established corrupted powers are telling people.
Britam was the military contractor who's accounts were hacked, Google that one. Here is a video list, as you go through the list note the dates on each video. The 2nd video in the list for example has a creation date of 8/20, as well as others I checked at random. There is no clean way I know of finding the upload dates without hitting play, but then again I'm no Youtube Guru.
While we members of the UN, the UN has given no authority to bomb anyone. Not that we need the precedent with a misinformed public mind you, the UN never approved us bombing Iraq either (Gulf 2).
Let's look at a few facts regarding Syria.
1. Last September Obama claimed there was a line in the sand of chemical weapons use.
2. December, FSA rebels posted Youtube videos of home made chemical agents killing rabbits.
3. December, German hacker broke into a UK military contractors email and found messages stating roughly the US and UK are paying enormous funds for us to sneak CWs into Syria, use a CW shell from Libya of Russian make similar to what Assad would have, and blow it up. Experts have determined that the emails look to be legit.
4. February chemical weapons were claimed to be used. The UN determined in March that it was the FSA using these weapons. Interestingly, the US claims contrary to the UN without evidence. Of course the war drum banging was minimized by media, perhaps too close to the emails suggesting false flag?
5. March, Military.com reported that FSA rebels were caught attempting to transport chemical weapons through the Turkish border into Syria.
6. March, FSA rebels kidnap 21 UN peace keepers. (more recently 5 more were kidnapped)
Now lets jump to last week.
8/20 videos start being uploaded to Youtube showing victims of CWs. Date stamps put many of these videos ahead of the reported attack by at least 12 hours.
Propaganda, er... US Media immediately bangs the war drum again and claims it must have been Assad (Who invited the UN inspectors in.).
You should be questioning why we are going in a circle. It's not like you were told the truth about Iraq's WMDs and look how well that war worked out. No, I'm not pro dictatorships. I'm anti-imperialism and anti-propaganda, especially when it harms a majority while a select few gain incredible wealth off of wars.
Patriotism is fine when it's not blind. Blind patriotism leads to Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Adolf, etc...
Sounds like a falsifiable hypothesis to me, it's not self-evidently true, it's something that could be researched.
I'm not sure how viable research would be when there is no way to validate what people claim on social networking sites, with or without all caps. I have seen incredible claims that were probably false, and have seen others that may have been true. *shrug* I personally would not loan money to people based on "friends" in a real world unless they were cosigning the loan. In a virtual world it would make less sense.
Personally I agree with you, see my comment elsewhere in this post regarding my thoughts for bringing back the Trivium and Quadrivium. Sadly, many people believe only in what they are told. They believe appeal to emotion arguments, and have difficulty defending against them since they lack training.
Science research eventually relies upon arguments set forth by Mathematics, which relies upon arguments set forth by Philosophy.
I concur, Philosophy comes ahead of science. If you can't present sound logic for an experiment or number crunching, good luck getting a grant for your experiment or number crunching.
The biggest reason why modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists boils down to the fact that they likely occupy their time reading different books, and thus aren't well-versed in the necessary esoterica.
I can't agree with this one. In the last few decades academia has tried to split Philosophy away from "Science". As evidenced by the person you are responding to, it has worked to at least some extent. Since Philosophy deals heavily with rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking it is kept away from the masses as much as possible.
Until very recent history all Scientists were also considered to be Philosophers. Science still uses Philosophy (the scientific method, rational thought, critical thinking, rhetoric, logic, ethics) all the time. There has been a huge push to try and make Philosophy less attractive to people, and we no longer teach Philosophy at young ages. Personally I believe we should go back to the trivium and quadrivium methods of education with updates where applicable.
Galileo was not wrong about ice at all! Read TFA and you will see it plain as day, the submitted topic is absolutely wrong. Galileo stated that density is why ice floats, where the person he was debating claimed it was all shape. Galileo was more correct than the person he was debating.
Galileo was wrong with reasoning for an experiment his opponent had, and kind of wrong about the objects shape having the ability to make an object float. Surface tension was unknown at the time, and surface tension while present is not always relevant where displacement is always relevant.
If you read TFA regarding the ebony experiment, you will see what Galileo was wrong about.
First, I apologize for confusing you with the person using the labels.
Lastly, attacking someone's arguments by name calling is an ad hominem. The reasoning for why this is ad hominem is not rare, does not require a secret hand shake, or even an advanced degree (see specific reasoning above). It is taught in basic rhetoric which a person would get in their 2nd year of college such as Philosophy 200 (or perhaps a 100 level introduction class). There is some room for debating the persons comment of "FUD". With more context that statement could be poisoning the well, or perhaps an appeal to emotion. In the context given, it's simply a name calling remark that does not rebut the statements.
I should add that if you had said Linux instead of Windows it would have been a more favorable point. Windows requires MS licensing and maintenance, some type of Anti-virus, patching, administration software and more people to man the work. It still may not have been true mind you, but closer than Windows would be.
Still varies depending on what your requirements are. If I need 100% uptime, a small IBM P will be cheaper than a cluster of Windows Boxes. Assuming the applications can run on a P series. It's cheaper to run numerous small web servers on a couple of small Oracle/Sun boxes and use Solaris zones. No license costs for Zones, and VMWare gets pretty expensive when you look at capabilities that require fail over and true redundancy. Lets not forget that you are probably stuffing a F5 or something in front of Windows boxes to get HA, and that needs to be included in your costs.
Claiming that Virtualization fixes hardware woes is simply untrue. You still have them, and license costs to boot in the case of VMWare. It's easy to use fuzzy math to make claims that some things are cheaper. Fuzzy math does not always match reality, and in some cases completely ignores reality. I believe I demonstrated that above in the overview of the actual costs of migrating to Windows.
It might be that self-driving cars are a danger to future society, but I'd rather us work towards preventing them from becoming that than from happening than preventing the cars themselves from happening.
In fairness, my original comment was intended as satirical humor point more than claiming that our cars would surely be miniature prisons. The satire is based on current revelations of spying, just like the being inebriated while in an auto-pilot car is based on current technology revelations.
Pointing out your exceptional failure is not hysterical, it's pointing out you are an exceptional failure. Now be a good little ostrich and go back to Faux and propaganda^wNews that matters!
In order for a person's point to be stupid the person must also be stupid or behave stupidly.
Not necessarily. Smart people can believe dumb things.
You only read half of the statement, missing "or behave stupidly". This should make it obvious that a person does not have to be stupid to make stupid statements. They can also behave stupidly and make stupid statements.
I'm actually angry almost to the point of fatigue over the growth of the police state apparatus in English-speaking countries every time I think about it.
This is not a unique thing to English speaking countries, and I think the leaks from Snowden make this abundantly clear. Mix with information regarding Gladios and you have a longer running world wide issue.
I just really, really hate driving and have high hopes for a technology that will remove the tedious and life-threatening chore from my day.
Technology can not do this alone, it requires humans to behave in a manner differently than what we see people in power currently doing. The same wishes have been made through history. Every time we make a technology leap people hope things get better. Then someone figures out how to use technology for evil purposes and we go back to where we were before.
This cycle goes back thousands of years. The way to fix it is for people to stop being duped and admit that bad people will do bad things if given the tools. Control and monitoring is essential, not blind faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Your example is absolutely wrong.
An example that would fit is that you know your friend bought a gun legally. That is the end of your knowledge. Suddenly the Police show up because your friend committed armed robbery. You were implicated because you had knowledge of the gun, and no knowledge of the crime.
An even better example would be this. You know your friend bought a motorcycle. The police show up and arrest you because your friend committed vehicular homicide.
There is a huge difference between knowing someone owns a legal device (in which a car can be a murder weapon) and knowing that they intent to use it for criminal purposes at some point in the future.
Don't confuse my example with your friend buying a gun and telling you he was going to rob a bank.
For this to happen, we would need to change our whole judicial view point which requires intent (mens rea). Either that, or negligence needs to become so broad that everyone is a criminal all the time. Negligence requires a common sense factor that you knew ahead of time that something could happen. Yelling "Fire" is a great example of the application in a sane system. Unfortunately we have not been sane for quite some time.
Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.
Quoting my favorite Philosopher, Socrates: "Justice can not be gained by an unjust system. The two ideas contradict each other."
But that's not the debate is it? Most people here are smart enough to know that neither side is the good guy, the debate is about whether action should occur to limit the impact of chemical weapons usage against civilians by the Assad regime. Other wrongdoing by either side is pretty much irrelevant to that. That's why your viewpoint comes across as one-sided, because you're painting the FSA as bad with all sorts of irrelevancies without giving the regime the same treatment before addressing the underlying issue - talk about poisoning the well.
As mentioned previously, this is intentioned as the US Media is painting them as innocent victims with no way of using Chemical weapons. You do the same, even to the point of claiming that they can't deliver CWs. That claim is absolute shite, and no I won't put that in a "nice" statement. Artillery and remote detonations do not require high levels of sophistication. You made an absolutely false assertion. When it comes to last week, I stated that we need to fact find and not assume it was Assad. You claim without any evidence (just like US propaganda) that it must have been Assad. That assumption is not fact based, and not based in history.
I do like however, that you dropped the UN findings in March from your argument because those facts hurt your belief that it must be Assad using CWs. How considerate of you to be so selective with facts.
Right, and that's why we have nukes, because we're going to actually use them? Most WMDs are EOL'd without ever being used as they're first and foremost a deterrent or bargaining chip.
While this may be _YOUR_ opinion, this is not the opinion of US foreign policy or any recent administration. We threaten Iran because they are trying to gain nuclear capabilities under the assumption that they will be nuking us and our allies. Do I really have to point out all of the foreign policy we have regarding this exact foreign policy?
And lets be clear about three salient points here. 1) I'm not questioning _your_ opinion on these subjects, I'm questioning the US foreign policy and administrations opinion. 2) I am pointing out, very intentionally, the media's one sided nature, not claiming _you_ don't know things outside of what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are telling people. 3) I have never claimed Assad was a good guy, nor is that the intent. Looking at Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... we obviously lack answers for what to do when a bad guy is removed and how to help the citizens of those countries.
You're both speculating and going off on a wild tangent again - Assad's forces have also committed mass atrocities and kidnappings.
Assad has not attacked UN forces, and the FSA has. Not just once on accident, but numerous times very intentionally. Is it more likely that the FSA shot at UN people, or Assad given that fact? You assumed that it was Assad, which defies verifiable historical events. Then have the audacity of claiming it's me on a wild tangent? Wow dude (or dudette), this requires delusion on a level that is difficult to comprehend.
Your example of the US and weapons inspectors makes no sense as Assad's forces do not control the area of the attack. There are a number of images doing the rounds in today's news of the rebels escorting the UN team around which highlights this is very much a rebel controlled area and that the rebels very much want them there and want to protect them and ensure they can do what they need to do.
You do realize that the US has been monitoring every CW depot in Syria for over a year correct? So what you are claiming is twisted reasoning. There would, and should be, two parts to the inspection. 1) investigating the target area, and 2) investigating CW housing facilities for recent activity.
If you don't get that, why would the US claim "Assad can clean up"? You do realize that you have spent rounds and traces of activit
Your post is an example of confirmation bias, you're only seeing what you want to see. The fact is the situation is far less straightforward than your post implies:
Since I am presenting an alternative view to what we are getting from most US News sources, the label of "one sided" seems to be poisoning the well.
"2. December, FSA rebels posted Youtube videos of home made chemical agents killing rabbits."
Can't say I've ever heard about this but what exactly does it prove? Simply that some rebels were experimenting with chemical weapons along with all the other home made weapons they've created? Great, but it's no proof of usage in actual combat or even effectiveness of chemicals against humans.
I never claim it's proof. The obvious reason to show this is to break the common illusion that the FSA are innocent victims in the use of chemical weapons. I could have also listed numerous atrocities the FSA has been committing against Christians, Jews, and Children. I didn't because A) The basis for the US attacking is a claim that the Assad regime used chemical weapons and B) Without facts those would simply be appeal to emotion arguments.
"3. December, German hacker broke into a UK military contractors email and found messages stating roughly the US and UK are paying enormous funds for us to sneak CWs into Syria, use a CW shell from Libya of Russian make similar to what Assad would have, and blow it up. Experts have determined that the emails look to be legit."
I've encountered this before though afaik it was a Malaysian hacker not that it makes a difference either way. I don't think "experts" can determine anything much, an e-mail is so trivially possible to make look legit it's meaningless, all they can really say is that there were no mistakes made in making it look legit, but seeing as a simple checklist is enough to avoid that then I don't know that it matters. Even taking the assumption that it was legit then it's not a smoking gun because it provides no verifiable evidence that anything concrete ever came of it.
Email verification is not just a visual inspection of messages. If you were correct that nothing can be gained then Snowden and Manning should not be in jail because email could have been forged right? We have forensics for a reason, and if we hold some to a standard then all should be held to a similar standard. Since it is "possible" to forge emails most forensics experts will not claim absolute proof. That said, a forensics expert would look at date stamps, originating addresses, then correlate that with a persons location. It is wrong to do as you did, in implying that it's impossible to use as evidence or that it's easy to forge email communications. (One message would be easy to forge, a conversation becomes an ordeal rather quickly).
"4. February chemical weapons were claimed to be used. The UN determined in March that it was the FSA using these weapons. Interestingly, the US claims contrary to the UN without evidence. Of course the war drum banging was minimized by media, perhaps too close to the emails suggesting false flag?"
This particular comment is painfully one-sided. The UN didn't determine anything. Russia, Assad's close ally made the claim that they had irrefutable proof that the FSA had used chemical weapons in response to evidence provided by the US and others (including independent organisations such as human rights and medical charities) that the Syrian military had used chemical weapons. Effectively it was a he-said she-said, but most definitely wasn't the one-sided no-doubt about it FSA only used chemical weapons scenario you're claiming. At best if reports are all assumed to be true then both sides made small-scale usage of chemical weapons though the problem is the Russian evidence is least credible because it could only come from one source, the Assad regime itself, and was not backed by independent third party source
The FSA winning has a high probability of ending up like Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc... I personally do t think thing are going well in any of those places, neither do the majority of theit citizens.
Thanks for digging, I simply lacked the time to track down all the sources. Nearly everything should be easy enough to find in a search engine. The hard one is Britam emails, which I have been hunting for when I have time today.
No wonder you post anonymously, good lord you are nothing but a string of fallacy. Yeah, because the only news Americans have access to is CBS, NBC or ABC or CNN. Thats it. The majority of Americans get their news from exclusively those sources. Your sarcasm is a fallacy, because I never stated that it was the only way people "could" get News and specifically pointed to alternative sources which do not have or receive air time on TV. Recently however, RT has been popping up on some systems. For the 2 months it has been on Comcast in the SF Bay area, it shows "Lease" in the title so most people would not know to look for alternative News there.
For your middle paragraph, you lumped yourself into "We're all" and not myself. Yet another string of fallacy, thanks for playing "I have a Red Herring!"
Oh, and by the way, the american public is overwhelmingly against any military involvement in Syria. But that must no be true cause I got it from CNN.
Ahh, more fallacy and partial fact to back your offense that US Media has become anything but "Journalism" in Broadcast News (and even some print "News" is force fed by the Govt [ see whistle blowers regarding the NY Post ]). Those number change drastically if the people are convinced Assad has used chemical weapons. But hell, we probably should not let any facts get into your cowardly anonymous rant should we?
Naw, don't bother answering any questions since they were purely rhetorical.
I mostly agree with you. Where I disagree is that without alternative sources lifting the curtain of propaganda is extremely difficult. Why do you think China tries so hard to control everything their people hear and read?
It's hard to call the public dumb when they are intentionally misinformed. In the US, we used to poke fun at the poor Russians and how they were misinformed by the Pravda. Today, our corporate owned monopoly of media does the same things we used to despise the Pravda for.
The hard part is breaking people out of the cave and teaching them to see delusion. I think that it's becoming easier today, because the propaganda has become so obvious. In addition, the internet has given a way for independent media to work outside of the corporate owned media.
The clock used is the Google server receiving the file, not the client's clock. Possible? Sure. Probable? No.
The point was not that everything is wrong, but rather enough is wrong that we should be investigating much more and not rushing to believe what the established corrupted powers are telling people.
Britam was the military contractor who's accounts were hacked, Google that one. Here is a video list, as you go through the list note the dates on each video. The 2nd video in the list for example has a creation date of 8/20, as well as others I checked at random. There is no clean way I know of finding the upload dates without hitting play, but then again I'm no Youtube Guru.
While we members of the UN, the UN has given no authority to bomb anyone. Not that we need the precedent with a misinformed public mind you, the UN never approved us bombing Iraq either (Gulf 2).
Let's look at a few facts regarding Syria.
1. Last September Obama claimed there was a line in the sand of chemical weapons use.
2. December, FSA rebels posted Youtube videos of home made chemical agents killing rabbits.
3. December, German hacker broke into a UK military contractors email and found messages stating roughly the US and UK are paying enormous funds for us to sneak CWs into Syria, use a CW shell from Libya of Russian make similar to what Assad would have, and blow it up. Experts have determined that the emails look to be legit.
4. February chemical weapons were claimed to be used. The UN determined in March that it was the FSA using these weapons. Interestingly, the US claims contrary to the UN without evidence. Of course the war drum banging was minimized by media, perhaps too close to the emails suggesting false flag?
5. March, Military.com reported that FSA rebels were caught attempting to transport chemical weapons through the Turkish border into Syria.
6. March, FSA rebels kidnap 21 UN peace keepers. (more recently 5 more were kidnapped)
Now lets jump to last week.
8/20 videos start being uploaded to Youtube showing victims of CWs. Date stamps put many of these videos ahead of the reported attack by at least 12 hours.
Propaganda, er... US Media immediately bangs the war drum again and claims it must have been Assad (Who invited the UN inspectors in.).
You should be questioning why we are going in a circle. It's not like you were told the truth about Iraq's WMDs and look how well that war worked out. No, I'm not pro dictatorships. I'm anti-imperialism and anti-propaganda, especially when it harms a majority while a select few gain incredible wealth off of wars.
Patriotism is fine when it's not blind. Blind patriotism leads to Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Adolf, etc...
and a kid smart enough to fill out a credit application to boot!!
Sounds like a falsifiable hypothesis to me, it's not self-evidently true, it's something that could be researched.
I'm not sure how viable research would be when there is no way to validate what people claim on social networking sites, with or without all caps. I have seen incredible claims that were probably false, and have seen others that may have been true. *shrug* I personally would not loan money to people based on "friends" in a real world unless they were cosigning the loan. In a virtual world it would make less sense.
Personally I agree with you, see my comment elsewhere in this post regarding my thoughts for bringing back the Trivium and Quadrivium. Sadly, many people believe only in what they are told. They believe appeal to emotion arguments, and have difficulty defending against them since they lack training.
Science research eventually relies upon arguments set forth by Mathematics, which relies upon arguments set forth by Philosophy.
I concur, Philosophy comes ahead of science. If you can't present sound logic for an experiment or number crunching, good luck getting a grant for your experiment or number crunching.
The biggest reason why modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists boils down to the fact that they likely occupy their time reading different books, and thus aren't well-versed in the necessary esoterica.
I can't agree with this one. In the last few decades academia has tried to split Philosophy away from "Science". As evidenced by the person you are responding to, it has worked to at least some extent. Since Philosophy deals heavily with rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking it is kept away from the masses as much as possible.
Until very recent history all Scientists were also considered to be Philosophers. Science still uses Philosophy (the scientific method, rational thought, critical thinking, rhetoric, logic, ethics) all the time. There has been a huge push to try and make Philosophy less attractive to people, and we no longer teach Philosophy at young ages. Personally I believe we should go back to the trivium and quadrivium methods of education with updates where applicable.
Galileo was not wrong about ice at all! Read TFA and you will see it plain as day, the submitted topic is absolutely wrong. Galileo stated that density is why ice floats, where the person he was debating claimed it was all shape. Galileo was more correct than the person he was debating.
Galileo was wrong with reasoning for an experiment his opponent had, and kind of wrong about the objects shape having the ability to make an object float. Surface tension was unknown at the time, and surface tension while present is not always relevant where displacement is always relevant.
If you read TFA regarding the ebony experiment, you will see what Galileo was wrong about.
First, I apologize for confusing you with the person using the labels.
Lastly, attacking someone's arguments by name calling is an ad hominem. The reasoning for why this is ad hominem is not rare, does not require a secret hand shake, or even an advanced degree (see specific reasoning above). It is taught in basic rhetoric which a person would get in their 2nd year of college such as Philosophy 200 (or perhaps a 100 level introduction class). There is some room for debating the persons comment of "FUD". With more context that statement could be poisoning the well, or perhaps an appeal to emotion. In the context given, it's simply a name calling remark that does not rebut the statements.
I should add that if you had said Linux instead of Windows it would have been a more favorable point. Windows requires MS licensing and maintenance, some type of Anti-virus, patching, administration software and more people to man the work. It still may not have been true mind you, but closer than Windows would be.
Still varies depending on what your requirements are. If I need 100% uptime, a small IBM P will be cheaper than a cluster of Windows Boxes. Assuming the applications can run on a P series. It's cheaper to run numerous small web servers on a couple of small Oracle/Sun boxes and use Solaris zones. No license costs for Zones, and VMWare gets pretty expensive when you look at capabilities that require fail over and true redundancy. Lets not forget that you are probably stuffing a F5 or something in front of Windows boxes to get HA, and that needs to be included in your costs.
Claiming that Virtualization fixes hardware woes is simply untrue. You still have them, and license costs to boot in the case of VMWare. It's easy to use fuzzy math to make claims that some things are cheaper. Fuzzy math does not always match reality, and in some cases completely ignores reality. I believe I demonstrated that above in the overview of the actual costs of migrating to Windows.
I was thinking this very thing. The only benefit of this I can see is that it would save them from paying bean counters to tally box office revenue.
It might be that self-driving cars are a danger to future society, but I'd rather us work towards preventing them from becoming that than from happening than preventing the cars themselves from happening.
In fairness, my original comment was intended as satirical humor point more than claiming that our cars would surely be miniature prisons. The satire is based on current revelations of spying, just like the being inebriated while in an auto-pilot car is based on current technology revelations.
Pointing out your exceptional failure is not hysterical, it's pointing out you are an exceptional failure. Now be a good little ostrich and go back to Faux and propaganda^wNews that matters!
In order for a person's point to be stupid the person must also be stupid or behave stupidly.
Not necessarily. Smart people can believe dumb things.
You only read half of the statement, missing "or behave stupidly". This should make it obvious that a person does not have to be stupid to make stupid statements. They can also behave stupidly and make stupid statements.
I'm actually angry almost to the point of fatigue over the growth of the police state apparatus in English-speaking countries every time I think about it.
This is not a unique thing to English speaking countries, and I think the leaks from Snowden make this abundantly clear. Mix with information regarding Gladios and you have a longer running world wide issue.
I just really, really hate driving and have high hopes for a technology that will remove the tedious and life-threatening chore from my day.
Technology can not do this alone, it requires humans to behave in a manner differently than what we see people in power currently doing. The same wishes have been made through history. Every time we make a technology leap people hope things get better. Then someone figures out how to use technology for evil purposes and we go back to where we were before.
This cycle goes back thousands of years. The way to fix it is for people to stop being duped and admit that bad people will do bad things if given the tools. Control and monitoring is essential, not blind faith.