that's a handy solution for us but millions of people dont know it.
Wikipedia is a project that is meant for the benefit of everyone, technically savvy
or otherwise, and your mother-in-law should be able to go to wikipedia, type in a search
and not be immediately put off by a crappy result.
Holy crap yes!! mod parent up!!
I can't count the number of times ive
run into this issue and it cant be just me which means prob a significant percentage
of their bandwidth & energy costs are being wasted on unuseful searches.
To be honest i now mostly do wikipedia searches through google with 'wiki' or 'wikipedia'
thrown into the search.
If we disregard the actual economics of the problem, which you are highlighting, do you
yourself not think that in an ideal world the public should have unfettered
access to scientific journals/information?
I just ask because, although you dont directly say so, the subtext of your intital post and
your replies to others gives me the impression that perhaps you don't think the public deserves
unfettered access.
The mechanism that might be driving what people think might be happening is
as follows:
Nerds, by definition, are social outcasts and often display the body langauge
of a nervous creature. Often the persons who are making the decisions about who gets hired
and how much they get paid are people who see this nervousness as a sign of weakness
and therefore assume the dominant role in this Employer/Prospective Employee relationship.
If the prospective employee is a nerd then
it is likely that they have been conditioned from past encounters to adopt the submissive
role in short-lived relationships such as this.
Given that this occurs then the dominant party will leverage their power such that the 'nerd'
is more likely to end up with a lesser wage/salary than that of a 'normal' well socialised
human being.
When have you ever seen this fat, talent-vacuum of a man ever express
the slightest trace of enthusiasm?
Im fairly certain sure the art department of the original trilogy
must have based that bored blubbery glazed over look of Jabba the Hut
on George Lucas.
"Something I've always wondered: How come people on Slashdot are normally of the mindset: I would never use a Micro$oft product ever unless I had to, my entire home setup is based around Linux even where that reduces convenience, if you help Micro$oft, you are a terrorist, Bill Gates is a cyborg , but then, no one bats an eyelid when someone castually mentions their Xbox -- a completely unnecessary Microsoft purchase?"
+4 interesting??? come on people, making a crappy gross generalisation like that and modding
it up??
to strap one of these to my repulsively obese body. I miss walking.
If they make them in my size then I should theoretically be able to
make it down to KFC under my own steam, as it were.
Potato and gravy never tastes so sweet as when you've earned it.
that there is a network of registered slashdot users that are paid modest amounts
of money, by global warming F.U.D P.R companies, to either make anti-global warming
posts or use their mod-points to prop up said antiglobal warming posts?
You've gone from dismissing out of hand the threat of terrorism as the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power to a much more moderate viewpoint
I have not changed my viewpoint.
The analogy in my previous post which you consider rational and defensible has been the one underlying my thought processes throughout this entire discussion.
Let's see how it applies to what i have already said:
the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power
Apart from the word 'Islamists'(which is not general enough), i stand by this statement.
It fits in perfectly with my "rational and defensible" analogy; The poorly equipped terrorists(the largely harmless peanuts) and the world's super power(the paranoid and dangerous allergic immune
system).
Here is another example from two posts back:
ok 1st things 1st.
Contrary to your implications, I have never at any point in this discussion said that Al Qaeda etc posed 'zero' threat to the American public, the main thrust of my argument has been that the reaction by the government of America has been outlandishly disproportionate to the level of that threat and the risk of terrorist acts on American soil has not significantly increased since before Sept 11 2001.
This is basically a paraphrasing of my peanut analogy. Everything else I have said has
basically been to try and provide evidence for this.
You, on the otherhand, have changed your viewpoint..
I'm not making any positive claims (e.g. I'm not saying "the us response is rational and justified"), I'm simply pointing out that radicalism in your own argument.
This is simply not true; you do make some positive claims...
Anyone who thinks radical Islam is not a rising global threat clearly has at least one eye closed.
Unless here you are implying that you yourself have 'one eye closed', then you are making the
positive claim that radical Islam is a rising global threat.
Now when you put statements like that together with your blether about Saddam being a possible threat, about W.M.D, that Saddam gased his own people etc you give
the impression that you think these are valid justifications for the invasion etc. Of course you
don't 'actually' say that so you can later deny having said that. Well done, how clever.
I had other points to make but judging by this discussion, your blog and many of your other slashdot posts, you have devoted a significant
portion of your life to making a sport of this and I do not wish to be a further part of it.
What's depressing is to think of how many other people in the future you will trick into participating in this sad little game of yours.
From now on I'll hopefully be able to recognise your sort (psychic vampire) before I get dragged
in again.
I'm really very sorry that I tried to provide evidence to support my arguments, judging by your handle I can only guess that you're used to believing many ridiculous propostions based
on blind faith. (how 'is' the search for those gold plates going??)
Anyway, enough with the personal insults.
You don't like evidence. Ok, one last appeal and then I'm done.
An Analogy!! (I know you love these;-) (except this one's valid(hope you'll still enjoy it)))
The response of the U.S government to an act of terror is analogous to the immune
response of someone who is allergic to peanuts. The response is not
only irrational but dangerous to the organism/nation/globe as a whole. Except
the U.S's response is worse than that of the immune systems because at least
the immune system's response doesn't have the potential to create more peanuts!
If you think that the U.S's response to 9/11 was rational and justified then you obviously can't see that this is a vicious circle and you are beyond help.
My personal feeling is that you have a fear of Islam based on religious beliefs
and are consciously or otherwise using this to justify your rabid stance.
Insightful comment. There are more than a few of the Dave Schroeder type
on Slashdot and they all seem to have read the same book on "How to
win arguments".
I can't quite call them trolls but there is the definite
sense that the forum for them is a game to be won, rather than
a way of exchanging ideas.
Contrary to your implications, I have never at any point in this discussion said that Al Qaeda etc posed 'zero'
threat to the American public, the main thrust of my argument has been that the reaction by the
government of America has been outlandishly disproportionate to the level of
that threat and the risk of terrorist acts on American soil has not significantly increased
since before Sept 11 2001.
Just thought i'd clarify that so, ya know, ya wouldnt think i was one of those
'extremists' that 'can't watch two things at once' (what a trick that would be!!)
Pearl Harbour!! Again with the World War 2 analogies! NOT APPLICABLE!!!
I hate to keep conceptually spelling this out for you but I can see it is necessary
Japan = powerful nation state
Al Qaeda = ragtag handful of violent nutters.
you accuse me of historical naivety but you seem to forget little footnotes in
history like the U.S being the only nation to use atomic weapons in combat. A nation
capable of this will have no qualms in taking control of foreign national resources
like oil or by dropping another nuke on any country that is getting
a bit too big for its boots. It is you that is naive.
The only thing that's absurd is your belief in the supremacy of the USA
ok, so the U.S doesn't command the most powerful military force in the world??
Don't tell me "there is evidence". Show it to me. Cite it. Otherwise you're likely going to be 'mistaken' for a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
Sorry i thought that maybe you hadn't been living under a rock for the last 5 years.
You really should utilise the benefits of the wonderful youtube.com and take in a few episodes of 'the daily show' where they often play old footage of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld confirming that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion.
You 'do' know they never found any W.M.D, right??
You do realise this means they were lying, right?? You understand footage like this does constitute
evidence of an extreme fabrication on their behalf, right??
So we have a historical precendent for their fear-mongering about a largely insignificant
threat in order to achieve their goals. And you think it's a conspiracy theory to think they might be trying to pull the same trick with the 'global' war on terror?
Of course you do, and what's your argument? 'World War Two happened!!'
We've established that the current threat to Americans from acts of terrorism is less
than the chance of being run over when you cross the road.
You believe that by regarding the current situation in this way neglects the possibility that
terrorism may constitute a much larger threat in the future.
The trouble is you have no rational explanation for how the world could get from our
current situation to your hypothetical future scenario.
So i ask you now directly: Explain to me how we get from here to there?
surely the burden of proof is on you to establish to me that this is a realistic
possibility? Otherwise you're just an extremist dealing in wild-eyed conspiracy
theories, right??
Regardless of any explanation is the fact that your arguments so far have been peppered
with 'ifs' and 'coulds', a litany of paranoid possibilities. I find it suprising
that you demand evidence of my arguments when all you have provided me is conjecture
and poor analogies. You clearly lack the ability to distinguish between possibility
and probability, which is a defining characteristic of a conspiracy nut.
I didn't counter it because I think most people would have a hard time taking it seriously. Most people would say 9/11 was good evidence that our measures were insufficient.
As I said, the possible 'measures' as supplied to 'the decider'(tht's Bush b.t.w) and Cheney etc by
intelligence agencies were ignored. You think intelligence agencies weren't on to Al Qaeda b4
9/11 even tho they had attacked the very same building in 1993??? You mu
You are comparing the lead-up to World War Two with the current situation.
World War two was initially between nation states of roughly equal size and power.
Global Terrorism is the conflict between small dispersed groups of
poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power.
Clearly this is absurd.
Ok you say, at the moment the threat is small but it is growing (you have evidence of this??)
and that if we dont stomp it out it'll rise up and destroy us just when our backs are turned.
Again, absurd. You think for a second the US government would actually allow a real threat to
endanger it??
Iran is a nation state run by religious fundamentalists and even the smallest attempt by them
to build even the pre-cursors to serious weapons has been smacked down. (Ignore the fact that
perhaps they may actually be pursuing nuclear generated electricity for their economy)
You can't seriously think for a second that if Iran actually developed 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that this would be tolerated by the U.S?
And this is precisely the sort of centralised capabilities that Al Qaeda etc would need
to become an actual real threat to the United States. That Al Qaeda is decentralised is the
only thing in its favour. Once it gives that up it becomes a nice, easily picked off, centralised target.
You seem to be forgetting the slew of lies fed to the public about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'
in order to invade the 'great threat' of Iraq.
That is direct evidence of G.W/Cheney/Rove creating a completely fabricated threat (Saddam) in order to pursue their illegitimate goals and you dont even have a plausible argument as to how your belief in the 'potential' threat of radical islam could get to the point where it could pose a legitimate threat let-alone evidence that it currently is a threat.
Oh and as for your 'they can just cut off the oil' argument....um what do you think one of the benefits (or potentially the main purpose) of invading Iraq was???
I note also that you failed to counter my argument that...
"Before the events of september 11 there were perfectly adequate governmental methods to "avoid getting eaten". The only thing that changed was that Bush/Cheney/Rove et al chose to ignore the advice given to them by the people/organisations who handle these threats, ie the intelligence agencies.
and you can't counter it because it is fact. The kind of threat that groups like Al Qaeda
pose has not changed significantly since the 1980's and there is no evidence that the measures
that were in place and used by the intelligence agencies in the 20 years preceding 9/11 were inadequate then or now. The extent to which the PATRIOT act erodes rights would have been completely unjustifiable except in a climate of manufactured fear.
Speaking of the 'patriot' act, I can't help but feel that you in some deep way buy into the jingoism of the Hawks; a feeling that is to some extent justified considering the way in which you bandy about the term 'extremist' in response to my own and other slashdotter's questioning of your logic.
"If you focus on the corruption of US politics to the exclusion of that real threat, you're ignoring the rock "
what threat from the actions of terrorists??
there is no real threat.
I dont have the exact statistics at hand but the chances of
you or anyone else suffering from the actions of 'terrorists' are vanishingly small.
You know this and I know this, ie more chance of dying driving to work
in the morning,etc.
Al qaeda is nothing in the scheme of real threats that you face
in your day to day life. People only believe that there is
a threat becos there has been systemic mass media fear-mongering.
"Saying that the main objective of this fight is to not get scared is like saying that if you have to fight a grizzly bear, the only thing to worry about is not getting eaten. Not panicking is a great idea, but you might want to also figure out how to avoid getting eaten."
Before the events of september 11 there were perfectly adequate governmental methods
to "avoid getting eaten". The only thing
that changed was that Bush/Cheney/Rove et al chose to ignore the advice given to them
by the people/organisations who handle these threats, ie the intelligence agencies.
So in conclusion: your dichotomy is false and the problem really does
lie with Bush/Cheney et al and the corporate media.
Slashdot Mirror
that's a handy solution for us but millions of people dont know it. Wikipedia is a project that is meant for the benefit of everyone, technically savvy or otherwise, and your mother-in-law should be able to go to wikipedia, type in a search and not be immediately put off by a crappy result.
Why hasn't this problem been sorted?
I just ask because, although you dont directly say so, the subtext of your intital post and your replies to others gives me the impression that perhaps you don't think the public deserves unfettered access.
Please clarify.
The world is perfect as it is, tuck that 100M under your mattress!
o.m.g that is, like, so clever how they just, like, switched that whole 'firefox' name on its, like, head.
and, of course, a good science of how atoms interact at such a scale.
it's called quantum mechanics. The obstacles in nanotechnology are mostly engineering ones rather than basic science.
Nerds, by definition, are social outcasts and often display the body langauge of a nervous creature. Often the persons who are making the decisions about who gets hired and how much they get paid are people who see this nervousness as a sign of weakness and therefore assume the dominant role in this Employer/Prospective Employee relationship.
If the prospective employee is a nerd then it is likely that they have been conditioned from past encounters to adopt the submissive role in short-lived relationships such as this.
Given that this occurs then the dominant party will leverage their power such that the 'nerd' is more likely to end up with a lesser wage/salary than that of a 'normal' well socialised human being.
"Lucas said, without a great deal of enthusiasm."
When have you ever seen this fat, talent-vacuum of a man ever express the slightest trace of enthusiasm?
Im fairly certain sure the art department of the original trilogy must have based that bored blubbery glazed over look of Jabba the Hut on George Lucas.
Honestly i don't know which is worse; this one or imagine a beowulf etc...
+4 interesting??? come on people, making a crappy gross generalisation like that and modding it up??
I'd say the weight the world's shoulders feel from the U.S is more like 20%-30%.
hee hee fatty boom bahs
You insensitive clod!!! I am bug-fuck paranoid and bitter!
Me play Drums! Me offended!!
Well put.
to strap one of these to my repulsively obese body. I miss walking. If they make them in my size then I should theoretically be able to make it down to KFC under my own steam, as it were.
Potato and gravy never tastes so sweet as when you've earned it.
that there is a network of registered slashdot users that are paid modest amounts of money, by global warming F.U.D P.R companies, to either make anti-global warming posts or use their mod-points to prop up said antiglobal warming posts?
Yes, and it's thanks largely to the bath-water of Post-Modernism; a nourishing environment in which the Roger Shawyers of this world can flourish.
"Cos like, science is sooo patriarchal etc..."
eat shit you nazi-cocksucker!
I have not changed my viewpoint.
The analogy in my previous post which you consider rational and defensible has been the one underlying my thought processes throughout this entire discussion.
Let's see how it applies to what i have already said:
the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power
Apart from the word 'Islamists'(which is not general enough), i stand by this statement. It fits in perfectly with my "rational and defensible" analogy; The poorly equipped terrorists(the largely harmless peanuts) and the world's super power(the paranoid and dangerous allergic immune system).
Here is another example from two posts back:
ok 1st things 1st. Contrary to your implications, I have never at any point in this discussion said that Al Qaeda etc posed 'zero' threat to the American public, the main thrust of my argument has been that the reaction by the government of America has been outlandishly disproportionate to the level of that threat and the risk of terrorist acts on American soil has not significantly increased since before Sept 11 2001.
This is basically a paraphrasing of my peanut analogy. Everything else I have said has basically been to try and provide evidence for this.
You, on the otherhand, have changed your viewpoint..
I'm not making any positive claims (e.g. I'm not saying "the us response is rational and justified"), I'm simply pointing out that radicalism in your own argument.
This is simply not true; you do make some positive claims...
Anyone who thinks radical Islam is not a rising global threat clearly has at least one eye closed.
Unless here you are implying that you yourself have 'one eye closed', then you are making the positive claim that radical Islam is a rising global threat.
Now when you put statements like that together with your blether about Saddam being a possible threat, about W.M.D, that Saddam gased his own people etc you give the impression that you think these are valid justifications for the invasion etc. Of course you don't 'actually' say that so you can later deny having said that. Well done, how clever.
I had other points to make but judging by this discussion, your blog and many of your other slashdot posts, you have devoted a significant portion of your life to making a sport of this and I do not wish to be a further part of it. What's depressing is to think of how many other people in the future you will trick into participating in this sad little game of yours.
From now on I'll hopefully be able to recognise your sort (psychic vampire) before I get dragged in again.
Anyway, enough with the personal insults.
You don't like evidence. Ok, one last appeal and then I'm done.
An Analogy!! (I know you love these ;-) (except this one's valid(hope you'll still enjoy it)))
The response of the U.S government to an act of terror is analogous to the immune response of someone who is allergic to peanuts. The response is not only irrational but dangerous to the organism/nation/globe as a whole. Except the U.S's response is worse than that of the immune systems because at least the immune system's response doesn't have the potential to create more peanuts!
If you think that the U.S's response to 9/11 was rational and justified then you obviously can't see that this is a vicious circle and you are beyond help. My personal feeling is that you have a fear of Islam based on religious beliefs and are consciously or otherwise using this to justify your rabid stance.
Petro-Dollars!!
Yeeee-Haaaww!!
I can't quite call them trolls but there is the definite sense that the forum for them is a game to be won, rather than a way of exchanging ideas.
Contrary to your implications, I have never at any point in this discussion said that Al Qaeda etc posed 'zero' threat to the American public, the main thrust of my argument has been that the reaction by the government of America has been outlandishly disproportionate to the level of that threat and the risk of terrorist acts on American soil has not significantly increased since before Sept 11 2001.
Just thought i'd clarify that so, ya know, ya wouldnt think i was one of those 'extremists' that 'can't watch two things at once' (what a trick that would be!!)
Pearl Harbour!! Again with the World War 2 analogies! NOT APPLICABLE!!!
I hate to keep conceptually spelling this out for you but I can see it is necessary
Japan = powerful nation state
Al Qaeda = ragtag handful of violent nutters.
you accuse me of historical naivety but you seem to forget little footnotes in history like the U.S being the only nation to use atomic weapons in combat. A nation capable of this will have no qualms in taking control of foreign national resources like oil or by dropping another nuke on any country that is getting a bit too big for its boots. It is you that is naive.
The only thing that's absurd is your belief in the supremacy of the USA
ok, so the U.S doesn't command the most powerful military force in the world??
Don't tell me "there is evidence". Show it to me. Cite it. Otherwise you're likely going to be 'mistaken' for a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
Sorry i thought that maybe you hadn't been living under a rock for the last 5 years. You really should utilise the benefits of the wonderful youtube.com and take in a few episodes of 'the daily show' where they often play old footage of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld confirming that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion.
You 'do' know they never found any W.M.D, right?? You do realise this means they were lying, right?? You understand footage like this does constitute evidence of an extreme fabrication on their behalf, right??
So we have a historical precendent for their fear-mongering about a largely insignificant threat in order to achieve their goals. And you think it's a conspiracy theory to think they might be trying to pull the same trick with the 'global' war on terror?
Of course you do, and what's your argument? 'World War Two happened!!'
We've established that the current threat to Americans from acts of terrorism is less than the chance of being run over when you cross the road. You believe that by regarding the current situation in this way neglects the possibility that terrorism may constitute a much larger threat in the future. The trouble is you have no rational explanation for how the world could get from our current situation to your hypothetical future scenario.
So i ask you now directly: Explain to me how we get from here to there?
surely the burden of proof is on you to establish to me that this is a realistic possibility? Otherwise you're just an extremist dealing in wild-eyed conspiracy theories, right??
Regardless of any explanation is the fact that your arguments so far have been peppered with 'ifs' and 'coulds', a litany of paranoid possibilities. I find it suprising that you demand evidence of my arguments when all you have provided me is conjecture and poor analogies. You clearly lack the ability to distinguish between possibility and probability, which is a defining characteristic of a conspiracy nut.
I didn't counter it because I think most people would have a hard time taking it seriously. Most people would say 9/11 was good evidence that our measures were insufficient.
As I said, the possible 'measures' as supplied to 'the decider'(tht's Bush b.t.w) and Cheney etc by intelligence agencies were ignored. You think intelligence agencies weren't on to Al Qaeda b4 9/11 even tho they had attacked the very same building in 1993??? You mu
World War two was initially between nation states of roughly equal size and power.
Global Terrorism is the conflict between small dispersed groups of poorly equipped Islamists and the world's SUPER power. Clearly this is absurd.
Ok you say, at the moment the threat is small but it is growing (you have evidence of this??) and that if we dont stomp it out it'll rise up and destroy us just when our backs are turned.
Again, absurd. You think for a second the US government would actually allow a real threat to endanger it?? Iran is a nation state run by religious fundamentalists and even the smallest attempt by them to build even the pre-cursors to serious weapons has been smacked down. (Ignore the fact that perhaps they may actually be pursuing nuclear generated electricity for their economy)
You can't seriously think for a second that if Iran actually developed 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that this would be tolerated by the U.S?
And this is precisely the sort of centralised capabilities that Al Qaeda etc would need to become an actual real threat to the United States. That Al Qaeda is decentralised is the only thing in its favour. Once it gives that up it becomes a nice, easily picked off, centralised target.
You seem to be forgetting the slew of lies fed to the public about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in order to invade the 'great threat' of Iraq.
That is direct evidence of G.W/Cheney/Rove creating a completely fabricated threat (Saddam) in order to pursue their illegitimate goals and you dont even have a plausible argument as to how your belief in the 'potential' threat of radical islam could get to the point where it could pose a legitimate threat let-alone evidence that it currently is a threat. Oh and as for your 'they can just cut off the oil' argument....um what do you think one of the benefits (or potentially the main purpose) of invading Iraq was???
I note also that you failed to counter my argument that...
"Before the events of september 11 there were perfectly adequate governmental methods to "avoid getting eaten". The only thing that changed was that Bush/Cheney/Rove et al chose to ignore the advice given to them by the people/organisations who handle these threats, ie the intelligence agencies.
and you can't counter it because it is fact. The kind of threat that groups like Al Qaeda pose has not changed significantly since the 1980's and there is no evidence that the measures that were in place and used by the intelligence agencies in the 20 years preceding 9/11 were inadequate then or now. The extent to which the PATRIOT act erodes rights would have been completely unjustifiable except in a climate of manufactured fear.
Speaking of the 'patriot' act, I can't help but feel that you in some deep way buy into the jingoism of the Hawks; a feeling that is to some extent justified considering the way in which you bandy about the term 'extremist' in response to my own and other slashdotter's questioning of your logic.
what threat from the actions of terrorists?? there is no real threat.
I dont have the exact statistics at hand but the chances of you or anyone else suffering from the actions of 'terrorists' are vanishingly small. You know this and I know this, ie more chance of dying driving to work in the morning,etc.
Al qaeda is nothing in the scheme of real threats that you face in your day to day life. People only believe that there is a threat becos there has been systemic mass media fear-mongering.
"Saying that the main objective of this fight is to not get scared is like saying that if you have to fight a grizzly bear, the only thing to worry about is not getting eaten. Not panicking is a great idea, but you might want to also figure out how to avoid getting eaten."
Before the events of september 11 there were perfectly adequate governmental methods to "avoid getting eaten". The only thing that changed was that Bush/Cheney/Rove et al chose to ignore the advice given to them by the people/organisations who handle these threats, ie the intelligence agencies.
So in conclusion: your dichotomy is false and the problem really does lie with Bush/Cheney et al and the corporate media.