This is proof that you either do not work in IT or you are at the bottom of the totem pole.
If you want to nitpick, I have the perfect solution. Copy my previous post into a text editor. Substitute "Manager" for "Admin". Now you have your own perfect copy and can move on to the point I was making about their userbase.
The profession of such a troll could be to collect advertising revenue.
Another entry to add to the "Virtues of Ad-Blockers" list. Not only does it speed up browsing and get rid of most of the crap, it also makes society a better place by not feeding revenue to the trolls. It's a win-win!
That's not anti-intellectual, it's anti academia. Intellectual != college educated.
It's somewhat anti-intellectual to view it in terms of "ivory tower", summoning images of something inaccessible to all but a privileged few. Especially when it comes to computing, the information is out there, it is freely available, and anyone who really wants to work for it can master it. That's the truth of it, even if some in academia do view themselves as some kind of elite. To assume the "ivory tower" is strictly valid is to buy into their elitism, something that would properly be recognized and rejected as unworthy of attention.
You can either design, code, debug, think -- or you can't.
I think that's what really sets a geek apart from what you could call mainstream culture.
It's a willingness to educate yourself and find your own answers. It's when you encounter a situation you don't know how to handle, and you take the time to research it and understand what you're dealing with and when you make your own decision. It's a willingness to try new things even if that means picking up the pieces when something doesn't work the way you had hoped. Above all, it's a valuation of self-sufficiency and an eschewing of helplessness.
Contrast that with most non-geeks who run into problems with i.e. a computer. They resent the very idea of even a quick Google search. They want someone to do it for them, to provide hand-holding. Even intelligent people who are quite capable of locating, reading, understanding, and executing concise, well-written instructions will do this. It's not anti-intellectualism vs. intellectualism; it's a third option encompassing both, a type of intellectual laziness that does not delight in learning new things and making personal discoveries. It's as though many people become mentally incapacitated and deny themselves the use of their skills the moment they leave their comfort zone, rather than having something like a sense of adventure and exploration.
I've encountered people capable of all of the above -- and don't find out for weeks, months, years (or ever) whether they have a degree or not.
That one depends on the person. Some people do not easily take initiative. Many people need some kind of external pressure. For some, the structure and the deadlines of formal education provides the pressure they need to find motivation. Rather than view learning as an open-ended exploration they do at their own pace, they need a clearly defined goal (i.e. a degree) and an easy way to measure how much progress towards that goal they have made.
While I believe it is better and if you like, a sign of a stronger person to not need these things, the bottom line is that such people do have the virtue of knowing themselves and knowing what it takes to acquire the skills they want. They do what is necessary to make it happen and that much is commendable. It is their own path to the same destination, and so long as it works for them and they are happy with it, it is ultimately a good thing. Since the destination is the same or quite similar, it is not surprising that how they attained their skills rarely comes up in your experience. What matters is that they have them and value them.
It's rare to see such a combination of technical experience, and familiarity with the realities of implementing a solution in a small business environment.
Usually you can only get one or the other from any particular individual. This is solid advice and a good starting point. It should be modded up.
Yet you seem to be responding to me questioning this site's integrity by taking a small part of my post in isolation, extrapolating it to a position where you can push your personal politic and adopting an intelectual high ground to create a false position where you can advertise a slippery slope argument as to what will happen ( 'atrophy' ) should I ignore you.
I was actually agreeing with you/supporting you. If it's "an intellectual high ground" then it looks like you are there with me. High ground is fine. It's the "I have the high ground and you don't because I'm better than you" mentality that causes problems. I reject that latter idea for the BS that it is.
I also know that an objective discussion of authority must include human beings as an hierarchical animal, and that the cultures we build from this are in large part responsible for us being able to have this conversation. I don't have the time, or expertise, to question the myriad decisions made every day by people in authority which affect my life. Neither do you. A pragmatic response to this may be to choose to which hierarchies I belong.
I think this hinges on what you call "authority". What I was referring to was not a hierarchy at all, but the well-known logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority" which could also be called "appeal to credentials". A low-UID user is not an authority in the sense that they may tell others what to do. A low-UID user is, in the eyes of some, an "authority" in the sense that they are assumed to be smarter/wiser/more experienced/more knowledgable than other users. It is that usage alone to which the fallacy applies.
As for me, I view all fellow Slashdotters as equals. That's one reason why I'm not impressed by a low UID. That's also a reason why I am unconcerned with your position in any hierarchy. I strongly prefer to deal with you as an individual. I think that's both more pleasant and more honest than looking for a way to pigeonhole or stereotype you.
None of this requires questioning absolutely every decision made by absolutely everyone. It merely requires reading a post as though I could not see the poster's UID. That's a lot simpler, you know.
The authority I'm questioning is this site in general. The signal to noise ratio is getting worse, encouraged by the editors who have a financial interest in the number of ad impressions generated by it. That the majority of posts in a thread about malware ( a problem which affects everyone, especially those in computing, via spam ) spreading to a previous uninfected platform is discussed with schadenfreude based on Apple's marketing that Apple users are 'different' is disappointing. I have both a mac and a PC under my desk and have noticed no change in personality as I move between them.
Man, you're not kidding about the signal-to-noise ratio. I agree that the editors are at best indifferent to it so long as ad revenue keeps coming in. That's one reason I am occasionally very hard on them when they can't even be bothered to run a spell-checker on submissions. I feel you should at least demonstrate the most basic competency at your job before you start getting greedy. But that again is not "authority" as I originally referenced it.
There indeed are rabid fanboys on this site who will think you're some kind of radically different person just because you have a Mac. Or because someone else doesn't. This is so important to them that it will color everything you say in their minds. If they don't like your affiliation, they will try very hard to twist your words to make you wrong because they determined that before they read a word you said. The label is that important to them, being petty and small-minded as they are.
While it's not nearly so bad, caring about someone's UID is just a more benign form of the same process. Both processes are something other than reasonably and objectively evaluating w
It's true that the US government has acted aggressively towards Muslim countries, and that its policies in many parts of the Muslim world are viewed as neo-colonist. It's also true that US citizens elect their government officials. It does not, however, justify terrorist attacks, and the people that have been killed or injured in these attacks are certainly victims, for the simple reason that the mass murder of civilians can NEVER be justified, for any reason. I think we can all agree on this ?
I think you're looking at it too (for lack of a better word) personally.
Consider if you are on foot, walking through tall grass, in an area known for its high population of venomous snakes. You can argue that death by snake-venom is too high of a penalty for merely stepping on a snake, something that does not really injure the snake. You can say that the punishment does not fit the crime. The reality is, if you step on a venomous snake it is likely to bite you.
You can try reasoning with the snake about standards of justice and such but I don't think it will do you any good. The person who puts such concerns in their proper place and instead spends their energy learning to watch where they step will be safe. That person understands cause and effect and this understanding will safeguard them. The trick, then, is to realize when you are dealing with a snake, or a hornet's nest, or a powder keg. They are not the same as dealing with someone you can reason with.
The Middle East is a powder keg. It has been that way since long before the USA had an irresistable urge to overthrow its elected leaders and replace them with ruthless dictators. It has been that way since long before there was such a thing as the USA. Do I think the terrorists are justified? Absolutely not -- people like them almost make me ashamed to be a member of our species. Do I think our leaders throughout the last several decades were arrogant, unwise jackasses for not understanding the snake, hornet's nest, and powder keg they were repeatedly messing with? Yes, I do.
That's the same mistake Sony made. You can blame the snake for being true to its nature but I don't really see the point. By process of elimination, that leaves the entity which should have known what it was provoking. It is they who bear the real responsibility.
Oh, yeah, because it's an issue that requires deep appreciation. . ./sarcasm
In your case, that remains to be seen.
"Oh no! Sony's a corporation of greedy asshats! We gotta show them!" Please. All these kids are doing is helping out Sony's competitors, other greedy asshats.
You say that as though one cannot live without a console and video games, or as though it's natural to value those things more than your ethical principles. I'm here to tell you, you can live your life without ever owning a video game console. If there is no console company that a customer with a conscience would want to do business with, then no console is not only a viable choice, it's the correct choice.
They're also helping congress pass anti-internet freedom laws.
What was done against Sony's networks was already illegal. You could have a death penalty for computer intrusion and all it would change is the legal jurisdiction from which the next attack on the next corporation originates. That's why securing your networks and deciding not to constantly piss off your customers are such good ideas.
But it's worth it, is it not, because Sony doesn't support Linux on PS3 anymore?
Do you think that focusing on the most petty, insignificant semi-related issue you can find is some kind of instant slam-dunk victory for yourself? It isn't. It only tells me that the first time you missed the big picture may have been a mistake, but now that I have personally pointed it out to you, your refusal to acknowledge it is your deliberate decision. The term for this is denial. The image for this is the proverbial ostrich that buries its head in the sand, thinking that will make anything go away.
It's not about their decision to renege on Linux support for the PS3. It's not about the rootkit fiasco (though if you or me tried that, we'd do time). It's about a long list of such things, all of them anti-customer, none of them sanctioned. It's about this being their standard business practice. It's about the fact that you can push people, and push them, and push them, and continue to push them some more, and for a good long while you can get away with that, but eventually they're going to push back. Only a fool is shocked and surprised when that finally starts to happen.
Whether you can stand it or not, there are some solid reasons why the events we are witnessing are unfolding. Like I said, it is simply cause-and-effect in action. By focusing your tunnel-vision on the effects only while ignoring the causes, you might satisfy some visceral emotional need to cry about how immature it is and pat yourself on the back for being such an adult. But this will not equip you to actually understand why this is happening, and the next time a corporation earns itself a backlash, you will be right back at square one, looking for someone to point your finger at.
If you really want to prevent these things in the future, that's simple enough. The next time a corporation infects many computers with a piece of malware, fire some members of its upper management and then send them to prison, just like what would happen to you if you did that. See, it's the lack of justice, or more accurately, the double-standard of justice that leads to these vigilante attacks. Get rid of that and you elminate the vigilantes. That's what I would personally like to see.
Ah so you guys (similar_name and TheCount22) take issue with him not caring about something that didn't affect him personally - yet you were okay and did not take issue with the hundreds of/. users who DID NOT CARE about the millions of PSN users and were jubilantly cheering the PSN hack - precisely because they were not affected. And wanted too much for Sony to fail, even if that was the expense of millions of people.
Hypocrisy - look it up.
There's no hypocrisy there because it's not really injustice. More generally, not everything unfortunate is an instance of injustice. Not everything preventable is an instance of injustice.
Corporations are like the political status quo. It exists the way that it is until people are actually prepared to do things differently. Sony can conduct its business practices because customers continue to reward it with money. By making sure there are no financial repercussions attached to undesirable business practices, those customers are at least as responsible for the corporate culture at Sony as its management team. You could even argue that management is merely giving the customers what they want.
The only reason why Sony has millions of customers who worry about this hack is because they continued to patronize Sony so long as Sony's faults didn't personally make them suffer. Finally, Sony's faults make them suffer. Now some of them start to get the idea that it's not so easy to overlook when it happens to them personally. They may start to think that other complaints they have heard suddenly have merit. Cause, meet Effect.
It's too bad the mainstream level of awareness is so thick-headed; it is not sharp and agile and independent. It requires some kind of charismatic leader to honestly explain these things; the people who could pull that off make more money by doing the opposite. Masses of people take too long to figure out that what they're supporting is not acting in their interests. It's a shame they often insist on learning this the hard way after ignoring many warning signs.
Here's the part that even those with the very best of intentions may not understand: as crazy as it is, they are choosing this and it is not my place to tell them how they should choose or what lesson they should need to learn. They are getting what they are choosing and that's why there is no injustice. If that is to change, they would need less insulation between their decisions and the consequences they experience, including less misguided sympathy.
They are not victims because victims don't get to choose. What they're really missing is a sense of personal responsibility and with it, an understanding of cause and effect that doesn't come from pointing fingers or playing blame games.
Whether or not some Slashdotter's personal feelings include delight in the notion of Sony failing is a petty concern. It can distract you from a deeper appreciation of the issue.
Vouchers? As in, tax payers money? As in the state is pays for the education? Just like... Public/State Schooling?
If the state is going to pay for it (because its deemed to be a state responsability) they should run it. Otherwise you end up with the shit house situation here in aus where the Private schools (as I am lead to understand, finding out this exact information is quite difficult) are funded 'per student' just as much, if not more, than their public (state) run counterpart, with the exception that they charge additonal fees on top and choose who they let in. Surprisingly these 'private' schools show quite good results.
In the end it seems people are just running around saying the government should pay for a private institution - which is just plain mad.
Under the current system of public schooling, the child follows the money. Depending on where they live they have to attend the school that for which their state/locality pays. If a parent wants to send a child to a different public school, in that case they would have to pay tuition in addition to the taxes they pay which go towards education.
Under a voucher system, the money follows the child. Private schools would remain selective. Their criteria for acceptance wouldn't have to change. If the child is accepted into a private school, the check to pay for that would simply be signed by the locality/state instead of the parent. That's the only difference. If no private school wants to accept that child, they'd attend a public school just as they (being born to non-wealthy parents) would anyway, only with a voucher system the parent could take them out of Failing Public School A and send them to Decent Public School B without being charged additional tuition (that is, without paying twice for the same service).
The loss of students would put political and financial pressure on Failing Public School A to get their act together -- no longer could they continue to fail knowing that the kids are stuck there with noplace else to go (one of the biggest single reasons for the poor quality schools in so many areas -- they get students and thus funding no matter how badly they perform). I mean think about it. If a company were guaranteed your business no matter what kind of job they did, what would be their incentive to provide quality? This is a truly self-evident principle.
What's the good reason you are opposed to this? It's like that saying, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Our schools, to put it mildly, fucking suck. If we keep doing the same thing the same ways, we can expect more of the same. It's time to try something different. If it proves to be a bad idea, we can move on to something else. Why is this such a big deal? Why do you think it's better for a child to follow the money than for the money to follow a child, who can then attend the very best school that will accept them regardless of how much money their family has?
It seems like the districts we spend the most on are the WORST ONES. For example, D.C.'s public schools spend over $24,000 per student, yet they graduate fewer than half. Meanwhile, the students in the voucher program went to private schools costing less than $14,000 per student and I don't think any of them failed to graduate. The voucher program cost less money and was more successful, so naturally OBAMA KILLED IT. Draw your own conclusion about this man.
That one would not depend on who is President. The most powerful group opposing vouchers is the NEA. Not only is the National Education Association the largest union in the USA, it's also the most powerful and most politically well-connected. They say "jump", the politicians ask "how high" and are careful to ask that nicely. If these people don't like you, you're really going to have one hell of a time having a career in politics.
Just about anything that would substantially improve the USA's schools would also reduce the power of the NEA and they will not tolerate that. The welfare of the students is their last concern. The perpetuation of their jobs and of the union's power is the primary concern. Vouchers would make private schools more accessible to more families, making it easier for private schools to compete against state schools. Whenever unfettered competition is allowed, the state schools do poorly both academically and in terms of expense. The NEA knows this. The movement towards private schooling would mean that merit and actual ability to teach become more important than how much seniority a teacher has acquired. It would end up weakening their power base.
Remember that these are people who will take to the streets and protest over salary but not a peep is heard about the fact that we're teaching the students crap, that in so many places fewer than half of them graduate, that they read and write at pathetically low grade levels, that other basic skills are lacking, etc. If that doesn't explain their priorities, if that doesn't tell you who these people are and what they are about, I am not so sure what would.
So, today was the day I lost any remaining respect for a low id
Sounds like you finally released your attachments to the false, erroneous appeal to authority. Good, that means progress.
Much as we try so hard to find ways around it, looks like you'll have to fall back to actually evaluating the merits of what the person is saying. That's ultimately a good thing. Why anyone would want that ability to go unused, to atrophy, well there is no good reason for it. I don't give a damn who you are -- you are subject to the same tests of truth as anyone. The more lofty your position, the higher the standard to which you will be held. That is all, and is as it should be.
It wasn't a mistake and Facebook should have stuck to their guns and refused to reinstate the page. If you go to their website it's basically just man bashing. This is currently the to story on the front page Porn & Trafficking This is little better than those stupid bitchs who proclaim all men to be rape supporters even those where there is no rational reason to draw such a correlation.
To some people, the feeling of being a victim is very precious to them. It is and has been a core part of their identity for so long that they will not give it up easily. A victim is always in relation to some "other" or some system, so It's yet another reason why a true individual is so hard to find. Of course this is strongly encouraged in politics, since broken people will cry out for someone to save them and won't scrutinize too heavily the motives and characters of those who answer that call.
Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are. It's not difficult to understand why it would eventually expand towards blaming all men. That's where it has room to grow after it stops being reasonable.
I never understood how people universally recognize why a duopoly in the marketplace, when it's all about money alone, is a bad thing; yet they universally fail to understand why a duopoly with a stranglehold on politics, when it's about both money and power, is also a bad thing. In both scenarios the customers and the voters lose.
Simple: for 80-90% of the "elected representatives", those who aren't quickly replaced or in non-safe districts, they are the aristocracy. They are the ones in control. Why would they support a system that is highly likely to remove them from power?
I don't believe you appreciate where I was going with that.
Yes, I am aware not only of the aristocracy but also of its favorite tools of manipulation. Whereas the kings of old would use their thugs to physically intimidate the peasants to keep them in line, the masters of today are far more sophisticated. They use the media and the public schools to keep people stupid, foster anti-intellectualism, portray mental and spriitual and particularly emotional immaturity as normal and acceptable, freedom as scary, love as either unrealistic or unattainable or limited only to a select few you happen to like, conflict as inevitable and unpredictable, trauma and humiliation as a normal part of growing up, privacy as illegitimate, meaning and purpose as elusive, independence as questionable and selfish, and subservience as patriotic.
I don't give a shit if those things are controversial. They're also the truth. Point is, I realize all of that.
My comment was on the effectiveness of the conditioning. It's the inability to apply principle, requiring that each specific instance of the same principle be taught in isolation as though totally unconnected to the others. That's why they love rote memorization and whole-word literacy. That's why the school system can instruct people that a monopoly or a duopoly in the marketplace is a Bad Thing. That's why those same people cannot apply the concept to what happens when a monopoly or duopoly dominates a political system. Their ability to think independently, to use reason, to apply principle, to connect ideas has been either destroyed or severely crippled.
Most of all, that's why we spend so much time bickering and squabbling against each other. That's why we spend what free time is left on useless concerns like celebrities and professional athletes, nice tame neutered things that can't affect the power structure no matter how they turn out. It's also why being a shallow, loud-mouthed, egotistical braggart who must be the center of attention has become an unstated American ideal. People respond to it because it reinforces the false idea that there is no more personal growth to do, that they are fine as they are, that their suffering is simply the nature of existence and not the predictable result of the decisions which are made and who gets to make them.
The horrible thing is: the worse it gets, the more entrenched it becomes, the more of a shock it is to wake up and realize how much you're being lied to and manipulated every day. It's the primary "barrier to entry" to those who otherwise have the capacity to become self-aware.
If they can't simply do a popular vote, then at least use a fixed boundary like county lines.
County lines don't work. Counties have different populations, some incredibly different (one county with a metropolis may be 5x the population of a neighboring mostly rural county). Constitutionally, districts must be as evenly populated as possible for Congressional representation.
What would make some level of sense is eliminating the anachronistic Senate, which used to be elected indirectly but has basically turned into a secondary squabbling house after the change to "direct election" of those assholes, and replacing it with a parliamentary percentage-representative system (say, each political party gets 1 Senator for each 1% of the vote they earn). The added bonus is that it would give an incentive for smaller parties to exist and participate again....which is precisely why the dumbicrats and republicunts won't go for it, since it would loosen their corrupt grips on power.
I'd be happy with a repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Senators being appointed by the state legislatures and sent to Washington to represent the states is a GOOD THING. It's what would prevent the federal government from bullying the states as it does today. Right now the current practice is easy to observe: the federal government collects taxes from the residents of a state; if the state plays ball and adopts policies that please Washington, the states get some of their own money back; the states are then beholden to the federal government (undermining their check against its tyranny) because their budgets become dependent (addicted) on this money. It's an attack on federalism and, to knowingly use a loaded word, extremely un-American.
The House of course should still be elected by popular vote. Remember that the House and Senate have to both agree on a bill for it to become law. That's the proper balance between popular representation and governance by legislators who do not feel pressured to wet their finger and go with whichever way the winds blow, abandoning all semblance of principle and philosophy of government.
That and abandoning the district system entirely and adopting (on the state level) the Single Transferrable Vote would go a long way towards fixing this nation. No one but the politicians benefit from the current system. The Single Transferrable Vote has the nice side-effect of giving third parties a much more realistic chance of winning elections. I never understood how people universally recognize why a duopoly in the marketplace, when it's all about money alone, is a bad thing; yet they universally fail to understand why a duopoly with a stranglehold on politics, when it's about both money and power, is also a bad thing. In both scenarios the customers and the voters lose.
That's what happens in motorsports, when they air F1 on broadcast tv. The commentators sound like they're speaking for 2nd graders: not commentating on the sport and what's happening, but repeatedly explaining nuances that anyone would have been able to pick up after watching a few races. So if someone can't put in the minimal effort it takes to lean the basics, why should they be pandered to, which would only reinforce their ignorance for everything.
We're already at the stage where people use an email client for 4 years and have no idea what a subfolder or a filter are, toss up their hands and yell "but it worked yesterday!" and demand something be fixed, like preschoolers.
It's interesting that in this one thread what the phenomenon actually means and represents is appreciated. You said it: immature like pre-schoolers. Not self-sufficient and capable of self-education like a proper adult. Balking at the slightest effort or inconvenience just like a spoiled child.
Most of the time I catch flak for pointing out that there's something wrong with adults acting this way. So be it, that's hasn't and won't stop me. Still, it's nice to see a thread where common sense is openly acknowledged with no apology.
The biggest single problem of the USA is emotional immaturity. It's being deliberately encouraged by treating adults like children who need to be protected from themselves.
I cannot imagine listening to some businessman seated next to me for four hours while he is conducting business or you talking to Aunt Bessie.
You cannot imagine the inaudible (on a plane) tapping sound of fingers occasionally tapping on the keyboard or touch-screen? That's what both of those would sound like, assuming I had an Aunt Bessie.
Far as *talking* on a cell phone, I never did understand why people have to be such inconsiderate morons about what is otherwise a really simple task. But you do realize a modern cell phone or netbook can do a lot more than carry voice signals. There's little or no reason to be shouting into a phone and disturbing everyone around you when other options are available.
I've been asked the same. It's not because of signal interference (despite what they will claim)
I agree and I note that the simple, well-understood term for this sort of behavior is: deception. I am rightly suspicious of people who use deception not as a last resort in a time of desperation, but as their very first preferred tactic. What would be so wrong with them saying, "takeoff and landing are the two most critical moments of the flight so we require as a condition of using our service that no one use devices known to cause distraction such as cellphones and headphones at these times". Without even trying it they immediately reject reason and honesty and use fear (of the plane crashing) as a tool of manipulation. Why do we tolerate that from people who are supposed to be serving us?
Well that's actually a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It's because getting to the intended destination is much more important to us than taking a stand and refusing to do business with anyone who treats us this way. It's also because this has become so common and usual that I don't think many people appreciate the dehumanization it really represents. What would they use as a basis of comparison?
but because the flight attendants want to be able to easily get your attention during takeoff and landing if it becomes necessary. Of course the noise canceling drowns out engines wonderfully while it tends to allow speech through quite well so it probably would have *helped* them get my attention, but they have no way of knowing that.
What's wrong with an alarm (or alert) system then? Something unmistakeable and unambiguous for use only in a genuine emergency, like bright red lights and a very loud (100-110dB) PA system so that any emergency announcement will definitely be heard over engine noise, movies, passenger chatter, and the like. Then if they really have a genuine need to quickly get the attention of everyone at once, they can do it. This doesn't suffer from the weakness of counting on every single individual to conform to bureaucratic rules with flimsy justifications. It has the added strength of not requiring flight attendants to be headphone nazis who deceptively micromanage their paying customers.
It's like we just insist on doing everything the hard way.
Direct Rendering Manager seems to be a more straightforward (and therefore honest) use of language than Digital Rights Management; so, it is the latter that really ought to change.
Michael Bolton: "Why should I have to change my name? He's the one who sucks!"
those who have privacy concerns for this , no doubt happily use an iphone all day long....
They can't possibly just have a privacy concern you either agree with, disagree with, or don't care about. No, no, no that's not how we do things around here. There has to be something wrong with them too. We're trying to imply that there has to be some flaw, something wrong with someone who takes a pro-privacy position.
Your suggestion that they'd happily use another device with privacy concerns of its own would mean they're hypocrites. Yes, that will do. We'll matter-of-factly portray pro-privacy as the position of hypocrites. The very best thing about this is that it's all about emotional appeal so it's difficult to reason against it.
So difficult, in fact, that sooner or later you'll start sincerely spewing the same bullshit yourself. 'Course you won't have much time left for actually explaining why you disagree with a pro-privacy position, but for you I suppose that has its advantages. Ad hominems are great fun, aren't they?
I'm too lazy to explain inverse-square law to you, but I'm sure somebody on Wikipedia will...
Were you more familiar with the subject you'd know that a large number of those who fear cell-phone radiation also claim that the power of the radiation is insignificant; that its mere presence causes problems. Hence, the decline of signal strength with the square of the distance would be irrelevant. This would be an example of someone exhibiting such a belief. I don't claim to agree with them, but a significant number of those who call for these measures do believe this. A quote from that link: "much weaker radiation than what is allowed in mobile and cordless phones may have harmful effects." I'd say the tower that's about a mile away would qualify as "much weaker" here, according to that position.
Lazy indeed. You just thought you had an easy slam-dunk and in the process revealed how unfamiliar you actually are with the issue. If you wait with your fingers crossed, perhaps you will have a more certain opportunity to sigh, roll your eyes, and demonstrate your superior understanding of well-known yet irrelevant basics.
The insecure and thick-headed who have a desperate and pathetic need to feel better than someone else are ruining this site. More time is spent correcting their failure to value knowledge more than smarm than is actually spent in productive discussion.
he U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. Weapons investors want war all the time. Financial institutions get rich.
Yes, we were warned about this a very long time ago. The term used was the "military-industrial complex". The fear was that its interests would become better represented by government than any interests of the people. Sometimes all you have to do is read the handwriting on the wall and they will call you "prophet".
Slashdot Mirror
That works for me! but you have to admit, nitpicking is entertaining!
Hah. I won't deny having done it myself, though it's more appropriate on some occasions than it is on others.
If you want to nitpick, I have the perfect solution. Copy my previous post into a text editor. Substitute "Manager" for "Admin". Now you have your own perfect copy and can move on to the point I was making about their userbase.
Facebook Admin 1: It's like they'll just keep coming back, keep using our services, no matter what we do to them.
Facebook Admin 2: Strange. Might as well take advantage of it while it lasts. Let's share more of their data by default then.
Another entry to add to the "Virtues of Ad-Blockers" list. Not only does it speed up browsing and get rid of most of the crap, it also makes society a better place by not feeding revenue to the trolls. It's a win-win!
That's not anti-intellectual, it's anti academia. Intellectual != college educated.
It's somewhat anti-intellectual to view it in terms of "ivory tower", summoning images of something inaccessible to all but a privileged few. Especially when it comes to computing, the information is out there, it is freely available, and anyone who really wants to work for it can master it. That's the truth of it, even if some in academia do view themselves as some kind of elite. To assume the "ivory tower" is strictly valid is to buy into their elitism, something that would properly be recognized and rejected as unworthy of attention.
I think that's what really sets a geek apart from what you could call mainstream culture.
It's a willingness to educate yourself and find your own answers. It's when you encounter a situation you don't know how to handle, and you take the time to research it and understand what you're dealing with and when you make your own decision. It's a willingness to try new things even if that means picking up the pieces when something doesn't work the way you had hoped. Above all, it's a valuation of self-sufficiency and an eschewing of helplessness.
Contrast that with most non-geeks who run into problems with i.e. a computer. They resent the very idea of even a quick Google search. They want someone to do it for them, to provide hand-holding. Even intelligent people who are quite capable of locating, reading, understanding, and executing concise, well-written instructions will do this. It's not anti-intellectualism vs. intellectualism; it's a third option encompassing both, a type of intellectual laziness that does not delight in learning new things and making personal discoveries. It's as though many people become mentally incapacitated and deny themselves the use of their skills the moment they leave their comfort zone, rather than having something like a sense of adventure and exploration.
That one depends on the person. Some people do not easily take initiative. Many people need some kind of external pressure. For some, the structure and the deadlines of formal education provides the pressure they need to find motivation. Rather than view learning as an open-ended exploration they do at their own pace, they need a clearly defined goal (i.e. a degree) and an easy way to measure how much progress towards that goal they have made.
While I believe it is better and if you like, a sign of a stronger person to not need these things, the bottom line is that such people do have the virtue of knowing themselves and knowing what it takes to acquire the skills they want. They do what is necessary to make it happen and that much is commendable. It is their own path to the same destination, and so long as it works for them and they are happy with it, it is ultimately a good thing. Since the destination is the same or quite similar, it is not surprising that how they attained their skills rarely comes up in your experience. What matters is that they have them and value them.
It's rare to see such a combination of technical experience, and familiarity with the realities of implementing a solution in a small business environment.
Usually you can only get one or the other from any particular individual. This is solid advice and a good starting point. It should be modded up.
I was actually agreeing with you/supporting you. If it's "an intellectual high ground" then it looks like you are there with me. High ground is fine. It's the "I have the high ground and you don't because I'm better than you" mentality that causes problems. I reject that latter idea for the BS that it is.
I think this hinges on what you call "authority". What I was referring to was not a hierarchy at all, but the well-known logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority" which could also be called "appeal to credentials". A low-UID user is not an authority in the sense that they may tell others what to do. A low-UID user is, in the eyes of some, an "authority" in the sense that they are assumed to be smarter/wiser/more experienced/more knowledgable than other users. It is that usage alone to which the fallacy applies.
As for me, I view all fellow Slashdotters as equals. That's one reason why I'm not impressed by a low UID. That's also a reason why I am unconcerned with your position in any hierarchy. I strongly prefer to deal with you as an individual. I think that's both more pleasant and more honest than looking for a way to pigeonhole or stereotype you.
None of this requires questioning absolutely every decision made by absolutely everyone. It merely requires reading a post as though I could not see the poster's UID. That's a lot simpler, you know.
Man, you're not kidding about the signal-to-noise ratio. I agree that the editors are at best indifferent to it so long as ad revenue keeps coming in. That's one reason I am occasionally very hard on them when they can't even be bothered to run a spell-checker on submissions. I feel you should at least demonstrate the most basic competency at your job before you start getting greedy. But that again is not "authority" as I originally referenced it.
There indeed are rabid fanboys on this site who will think you're some kind of radically different person just because you have a Mac. Or because someone else doesn't. This is so important to them that it will color everything you say in their minds. If they don't like your affiliation, they will try very hard to twist your words to make you wrong because they determined that before they read a word you said. The label is that important to them, being petty and small-minded as they are.
While it's not nearly so bad, caring about someone's UID is just a more benign form of the same process. Both processes are something other than reasonably and objectively evaluating w
I think you're looking at it too (for lack of a better word) personally.
Consider if you are on foot, walking through tall grass, in an area known for its high population of venomous snakes. You can argue that death by snake-venom is too high of a penalty for merely stepping on a snake, something that does not really injure the snake. You can say that the punishment does not fit the crime. The reality is, if you step on a venomous snake it is likely to bite you.
You can try reasoning with the snake about standards of justice and such but I don't think it will do you any good. The person who puts such concerns in their proper place and instead spends their energy learning to watch where they step will be safe. That person understands cause and effect and this understanding will safeguard them. The trick, then, is to realize when you are dealing with a snake, or a hornet's nest, or a powder keg. They are not the same as dealing with someone you can reason with.
The Middle East is a powder keg. It has been that way since long before the USA had an irresistable urge to overthrow its elected leaders and replace them with ruthless dictators. It has been that way since long before there was such a thing as the USA. Do I think the terrorists are justified? Absolutely not -- people like them almost make me ashamed to be a member of our species. Do I think our leaders throughout the last several decades were arrogant, unwise jackasses for not understanding the snake, hornet's nest, and powder keg they were repeatedly messing with? Yes, I do.
That's the same mistake Sony made. You can blame the snake for being true to its nature but I don't really see the point. By process of elimination, that leaves the entity which should have known what it was provoking. It is they who bear the real responsibility.
In your case, that remains to be seen.
You say that as though one cannot live without a console and video games, or as though it's natural to value those things more than your ethical principles. I'm here to tell you, you can live your life without ever owning a video game console. If there is no console company that a customer with a conscience would want to do business with, then no console is not only a viable choice, it's the correct choice.
What was done against Sony's networks was already illegal. You could have a death penalty for computer intrusion and all it would change is the legal jurisdiction from which the next attack on the next corporation originates. That's why securing your networks and deciding not to constantly piss off your customers are such good ideas.
Do you think that focusing on the most petty, insignificant semi-related issue you can find is some kind of instant slam-dunk victory for yourself? It isn't. It only tells me that the first time you missed the big picture may have been a mistake, but now that I have personally pointed it out to you, your refusal to acknowledge it is your deliberate decision. The term for this is denial. The image for this is the proverbial ostrich that buries its head in the sand, thinking that will make anything go away.
It's not about their decision to renege on Linux support for the PS3. It's not about the rootkit fiasco (though if you or me tried that, we'd do time). It's about a long list of such things, all of them anti-customer, none of them sanctioned. It's about this being their standard business practice. It's about the fact that you can push people, and push them, and push them, and continue to push them some more, and for a good long while you can get away with that, but eventually they're going to push back. Only a fool is shocked and surprised when that finally starts to happen.
Whether you can stand it or not, there are some solid reasons why the events we are witnessing are unfolding. Like I said, it is simply cause-and-effect in action. By focusing your tunnel-vision on the effects only while ignoring the causes, you might satisfy some visceral emotional need to cry about how immature it is and pat yourself on the back for being such an adult. But this will not equip you to actually understand why this is happening, and the next time a corporation earns itself a backlash, you will be right back at square one, looking for someone to point your finger at.
If you really want to prevent these things in the future, that's simple enough. The next time a corporation infects many computers with a piece of malware, fire some members of its upper management and then send them to prison, just like what would happen to you if you did that. See, it's the lack of justice, or more accurately, the double-standard of justice that leads to these vigilante attacks. Get rid of that and you elminate the vigilantes. That's what I would personally like to see.
Ah so you guys (similar_name and TheCount22) take issue with him not caring about something that didn't affect him personally - yet you were okay and did not take issue with the hundreds of /. users who DID NOT CARE about the millions of PSN users and were jubilantly cheering the PSN hack - precisely because they were not affected. And wanted too much for Sony to fail, even if that was the expense of millions of people.
Hypocrisy - look it up.
There's no hypocrisy there because it's not really injustice. More generally, not everything unfortunate is an instance of injustice. Not everything preventable is an instance of injustice.
Corporations are like the political status quo. It exists the way that it is until people are actually prepared to do things differently. Sony can conduct its business practices because customers continue to reward it with money. By making sure there are no financial repercussions attached to undesirable business practices, those customers are at least as responsible for the corporate culture at Sony as its management team. You could even argue that management is merely giving the customers what they want.
The only reason why Sony has millions of customers who worry about this hack is because they continued to patronize Sony so long as Sony's faults didn't personally make them suffer. Finally, Sony's faults make them suffer. Now some of them start to get the idea that it's not so easy to overlook when it happens to them personally. They may start to think that other complaints they have heard suddenly have merit. Cause, meet Effect.
It's too bad the mainstream level of awareness is so thick-headed; it is not sharp and agile and independent. It requires some kind of charismatic leader to honestly explain these things; the people who could pull that off make more money by doing the opposite. Masses of people take too long to figure out that what they're supporting is not acting in their interests. It's a shame they often insist on learning this the hard way after ignoring many warning signs.
Here's the part that even those with the very best of intentions may not understand: as crazy as it is, they are choosing this and it is not my place to tell them how they should choose or what lesson they should need to learn. They are getting what they are choosing and that's why there is no injustice. If that is to change, they would need less insulation between their decisions and the consequences they experience, including less misguided sympathy.
They are not victims because victims don't get to choose. What they're really missing is a sense of personal responsibility and with it, an understanding of cause and effect that doesn't come from pointing fingers or playing blame games.
Whether or not some Slashdotter's personal feelings include delight in the notion of Sony failing is a petty concern. It can distract you from a deeper appreciation of the issue.
Vouchers? As in, tax payers money? As in the state is pays for the education? Just like... Public/State Schooling?
If the state is going to pay for it (because its deemed to be a state responsability) they should run it. Otherwise you end up with the shit house situation here in aus where the Private schools (as I am lead to understand, finding out this exact information is quite difficult) are funded 'per student' just as much, if not more, than their public (state) run counterpart, with the exception that they charge additonal fees on top and choose who they let in. Surprisingly these 'private' schools show quite good results.
In the end it seems people are just running around saying the government should pay for a private institution - which is just plain mad.
Under the current system of public schooling, the child follows the money. Depending on where they live they have to attend the school that for which their state/locality pays. If a parent wants to send a child to a different public school, in that case they would have to pay tuition in addition to the taxes they pay which go towards education.
Under a voucher system, the money follows the child. Private schools would remain selective. Their criteria for acceptance wouldn't have to change. If the child is accepted into a private school, the check to pay for that would simply be signed by the locality/state instead of the parent. That's the only difference. If no private school wants to accept that child, they'd attend a public school just as they (being born to non-wealthy parents) would anyway, only with a voucher system the parent could take them out of Failing Public School A and send them to Decent Public School B without being charged additional tuition (that is, without paying twice for the same service).
The loss of students would put political and financial pressure on Failing Public School A to get their act together -- no longer could they continue to fail knowing that the kids are stuck there with noplace else to go (one of the biggest single reasons for the poor quality schools in so many areas -- they get students and thus funding no matter how badly they perform). I mean think about it. If a company were guaranteed your business no matter what kind of job they did, what would be their incentive to provide quality? This is a truly self-evident principle.
What's the good reason you are opposed to this? It's like that saying, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Our schools, to put it mildly, fucking suck. If we keep doing the same thing the same ways, we can expect more of the same. It's time to try something different. If it proves to be a bad idea, we can move on to something else. Why is this such a big deal? Why do you think it's better for a child to follow the money than for the money to follow a child, who can then attend the very best school that will accept them regardless of how much money their family has?
It seems like the districts we spend the most on are the WORST ONES. For example, D.C.'s public schools spend over $24,000 per student, yet they graduate fewer than half. Meanwhile, the students in the voucher program went to private schools costing less than $14,000 per student and I don't think any of them failed to graduate. The voucher program cost less money and was more successful, so naturally OBAMA KILLED IT. Draw your own conclusion about this man.
That one would not depend on who is President. The most powerful group opposing vouchers is the NEA. Not only is the National Education Association the largest union in the USA, it's also the most powerful and most politically well-connected. They say "jump", the politicians ask "how high" and are careful to ask that nicely. If these people don't like you, you're really going to have one hell of a time having a career in politics.
Just about anything that would substantially improve the USA's schools would also reduce the power of the NEA and they will not tolerate that. The welfare of the students is their last concern. The perpetuation of their jobs and of the union's power is the primary concern. Vouchers would make private schools more accessible to more families, making it easier for private schools to compete against state schools. Whenever unfettered competition is allowed, the state schools do poorly both academically and in terms of expense. The NEA knows this. The movement towards private schooling would mean that merit and actual ability to teach become more important than how much seniority a teacher has acquired. It would end up weakening their power base.
Remember that these are people who will take to the streets and protest over salary but not a peep is heard about the fact that we're teaching the students crap, that in so many places fewer than half of them graduate, that they read and write at pathetically low grade levels, that other basic skills are lacking, etc. If that doesn't explain their priorities, if that doesn't tell you who these people are and what they are about, I am not so sure what would.
Sounds like you finally released your attachments to the false, erroneous appeal to authority. Good, that means progress.
Much as we try so hard to find ways around it, looks like you'll have to fall back to actually evaluating the merits of what the person is saying. That's ultimately a good thing. Why anyone would want that ability to go unused, to atrophy, well there is no good reason for it. I don't give a damn who you are -- you are subject to the same tests of truth as anyone. The more lofty your position, the higher the standard to which you will be held. That is all, and is as it should be.
Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are.
-- crush all humen --
Why would you expend all the effort and expense to do all of that? As it stands now, all you'd have to do is leave them to their own devices.
It wasn't a mistake and Facebook should have stuck to their guns and refused to reinstate the page. If you go to their website it's basically just man bashing. This is currently the to story on the front page Porn & Trafficking This is little better than those stupid bitchs who proclaim all men to be rape supporters even those where there is no rational reason to draw such a correlation.
To some people, the feeling of being a victim is very precious to them. It is and has been a core part of their identity for so long that they will not give it up easily. A victim is always in relation to some "other" or some system, so It's yet another reason why a true individual is so hard to find. Of course this is strongly encouraged in politics, since broken people will cry out for someone to save them and won't scrutinize too heavily the motives and characters of those who answer that call.
Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are. It's not difficult to understand why it would eventually expand towards blaming all men. That's where it has room to grow after it stops being reasonable.
I never understood how people universally recognize why a duopoly in the marketplace, when it's all about money alone, is a bad thing; yet they universally fail to understand why a duopoly with a stranglehold on politics, when it's about both money and power, is also a bad thing. In both scenarios the customers and the voters lose.
Simple: for 80-90% of the "elected representatives", those who aren't quickly replaced or in non-safe districts, they are the aristocracy. They are the ones in control. Why would they support a system that is highly likely to remove them from power?
I don't believe you appreciate where I was going with that.
Yes, I am aware not only of the aristocracy but also of its favorite tools of manipulation. Whereas the kings of old would use their thugs to physically intimidate the peasants to keep them in line, the masters of today are far more sophisticated. They use the media and the public schools to keep people stupid, foster anti-intellectualism, portray mental and spriitual and particularly emotional immaturity as normal and acceptable, freedom as scary, love as either unrealistic or unattainable or limited only to a select few you happen to like, conflict as inevitable and unpredictable, trauma and humiliation as a normal part of growing up, privacy as illegitimate, meaning and purpose as elusive, independence as questionable and selfish, and subservience as patriotic.
I don't give a shit if those things are controversial. They're also the truth. Point is, I realize all of that.
My comment was on the effectiveness of the conditioning. It's the inability to apply principle, requiring that each specific instance of the same principle be taught in isolation as though totally unconnected to the others. That's why they love rote memorization and whole-word literacy. That's why the school system can instruct people that a monopoly or a duopoly in the marketplace is a Bad Thing. That's why those same people cannot apply the concept to what happens when a monopoly or duopoly dominates a political system. Their ability to think independently, to use reason, to apply principle, to connect ideas has been either destroyed or severely crippled.
Most of all, that's why we spend so much time bickering and squabbling against each other. That's why we spend what free time is left on useless concerns like celebrities and professional athletes, nice tame neutered things that can't affect the power structure no matter how they turn out. It's also why being a shallow, loud-mouthed, egotistical braggart who must be the center of attention has become an unstated American ideal. People respond to it because it reinforces the false idea that there is no more personal growth to do, that they are fine as they are, that their suffering is simply the nature of existence and not the predictable result of the decisions which are made and who gets to make them.
The horrible thing is: the worse it gets, the more entrenched it becomes, the more of a shock it is to wake up and realize how much you're being lied to and manipulated every day. It's the primary "barrier to entry" to those who otherwise have the capacity to become self-aware.
If they can't simply do a popular vote, then at least use a fixed boundary like county lines.
County lines don't work. Counties have different populations, some incredibly different (one county with a metropolis may be 5x the population of a neighboring mostly rural county). Constitutionally, districts must be as evenly populated as possible for Congressional representation.
What would make some level of sense is eliminating the anachronistic Senate, which used to be elected indirectly but has basically turned into a secondary squabbling house after the change to "direct election" of those assholes, and replacing it with a parliamentary percentage-representative system (say, each political party gets 1 Senator for each 1% of the vote they earn). The added bonus is that it would give an incentive for smaller parties to exist and participate again. ...which is precisely why the dumbicrats and republicunts won't go for it, since it would loosen their corrupt grips on power.
I'd be happy with a repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Senators being appointed by the state legislatures and sent to Washington to represent the states is a GOOD THING. It's what would prevent the federal government from bullying the states as it does today. Right now the current practice is easy to observe: the federal government collects taxes from the residents of a state; if the state plays ball and adopts policies that please Washington, the states get some of their own money back; the states are then beholden to the federal government (undermining their check against its tyranny) because their budgets become dependent (addicted) on this money. It's an attack on federalism and, to knowingly use a loaded word, extremely un-American.
The House of course should still be elected by popular vote. Remember that the House and Senate have to both agree on a bill for it to become law. That's the proper balance between popular representation and governance by legislators who do not feel pressured to wet their finger and go with whichever way the winds blow, abandoning all semblance of principle and philosophy of government.
That and abandoning the district system entirely and adopting (on the state level) the Single Transferrable Vote would go a long way towards fixing this nation. No one but the politicians benefit from the current system. The Single Transferrable Vote has the nice side-effect of giving third parties a much more realistic chance of winning elections. I never understood how people universally recognize why a duopoly in the marketplace, when it's all about money alone, is a bad thing; yet they universally fail to understand why a duopoly with a stranglehold on politics, when it's about both money and power, is also a bad thing. In both scenarios the customers and the voters lose.
That's what happens in motorsports, when they air F1 on broadcast tv. The commentators sound like they're speaking for 2nd graders: not commentating on the sport and what's happening, but repeatedly explaining nuances that anyone would have been able to pick up after watching a few races. So if someone can't put in the minimal effort it takes to lean the basics, why should they be pandered to, which would only reinforce their ignorance for everything.
We're already at the stage where people use an email client for 4 years and have no idea what a subfolder or a filter are, toss up their hands and yell "but it worked yesterday!" and demand something be fixed, like preschoolers.
It's interesting that in this one thread what the phenomenon actually means and represents is appreciated. You said it: immature like pre-schoolers. Not self-sufficient and capable of self-education like a proper adult. Balking at the slightest effort or inconvenience just like a spoiled child.
Most of the time I catch flak for pointing out that there's something wrong with adults acting this way. So be it, that's hasn't and won't stop me. Still, it's nice to see a thread where common sense is openly acknowledged with no apology.
The biggest single problem of the USA is emotional immaturity. It's being deliberately encouraged by treating adults like children who need to be protected from themselves.
You cannot imagine the inaudible (on a plane) tapping sound of fingers occasionally tapping on the keyboard or touch-screen? That's what both of those would sound like, assuming I had an Aunt Bessie.
Far as *talking* on a cell phone, I never did understand why people have to be such inconsiderate morons about what is otherwise a really simple task. But you do realize a modern cell phone or netbook can do a lot more than carry voice signals. There's little or no reason to be shouting into a phone and disturbing everyone around you when other options are available.
I agree and I note that the simple, well-understood term for this sort of behavior is: deception. I am rightly suspicious of people who use deception not as a last resort in a time of desperation, but as their very first preferred tactic. What would be so wrong with them saying, "takeoff and landing are the two most critical moments of the flight so we require as a condition of using our service that no one use devices known to cause distraction such as cellphones and headphones at these times". Without even trying it they immediately reject reason and honesty and use fear (of the plane crashing) as a tool of manipulation. Why do we tolerate that from people who are supposed to be serving us?
Well that's actually a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It's because getting to the intended destination is much more important to us than taking a stand and refusing to do business with anyone who treats us this way. It's also because this has become so common and usual that I don't think many people appreciate the dehumanization it really represents. What would they use as a basis of comparison?
What's wrong with an alarm (or alert) system then? Something unmistakeable and unambiguous for use only in a genuine emergency, like bright red lights and a very loud (100-110dB) PA system so that any emergency announcement will definitely be heard over engine noise, movies, passenger chatter, and the like. Then if they really have a genuine need to quickly get the attention of everyone at once, they can do it. This doesn't suffer from the weakness of counting on every single individual to conform to bureaucratic rules with flimsy justifications. It has the added strength of not requiring flight attendants to be headphone nazis who deceptively micromanage their paying customers.
It's like we just insist on doing everything the hard way.
Direct Rendering Manager seems to be a more straightforward (and therefore honest) use of language than Digital Rights Management; so, it is the latter that really ought to change.
Michael Bolton: "Why should I have to change my name? He's the one who sucks!"
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=9752344&tstart=0#9752344
http://www.apple.com/library/test/success.html
those who have privacy concerns for this , no doubt happily use an iphone all day long....
They can't possibly just have a privacy concern you either agree with, disagree with, or don't care about. No, no, no that's not how we do things around here. There has to be something wrong with them too. We're trying to imply that there has to be some flaw, something wrong with someone who takes a pro-privacy position.
Your suggestion that they'd happily use another device with privacy concerns of its own would mean they're hypocrites. Yes, that will do. We'll matter-of-factly portray pro-privacy as the position of hypocrites. The very best thing about this is that it's all about emotional appeal so it's difficult to reason against it.
So difficult, in fact, that sooner or later you'll start sincerely spewing the same bullshit yourself. 'Course you won't have much time left for actually explaining why you disagree with a pro-privacy position, but for you I suppose that has its advantages. Ad hominems are great fun, aren't they?
I'm too lazy to explain inverse-square law to you, but I'm sure somebody on Wikipedia will...
Were you more familiar with the subject you'd know that a large number of those who fear cell-phone radiation also claim that the power of the radiation is insignificant; that its mere presence causes problems. Hence, the decline of signal strength with the square of the distance would be irrelevant. This would be an example of someone exhibiting such a belief. I don't claim to agree with them, but a significant number of those who call for these measures do believe this. A quote from that link: "much weaker radiation than what is allowed in mobile and cordless phones may have harmful effects." I'd say the tower that's about a mile away would qualify as "much weaker" here, according to that position.
Lazy indeed. You just thought you had an easy slam-dunk and in the process revealed how unfamiliar you actually are with the issue. If you wait with your fingers crossed, perhaps you will have a more certain opportunity to sigh, roll your eyes, and demonstrate your superior understanding of well-known yet irrelevant basics.
The insecure and thick-headed who have a desperate and pathetic need to feel better than someone else are ruining this site. More time is spent correcting their failure to value knowledge more than smarm than is actually spent in productive discussion.
he U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. Weapons investors want war all the time. Financial institutions get rich.
Yes, we were warned about this a very long time ago. The term used was the "military-industrial complex". The fear was that its interests would become better represented by government than any interests of the people. Sometimes all you have to do is read the handwriting on the wall and they will call you "prophet".