The point is that the entire of goal of astroturfing is to make it as hard as possible to distinguish astroturf from genuine opinion. If you can't tell the difference then you can't unfriend only the astroturfers. Especially when the astroturfer realyl is genuine 90% of the time and only schills on rare occasion.
it's.... it's almost like.... they don't *want* our money, like they see the new technology and say... no, we refuse to be compatible with your phone and laptop and tablet and etc, will you please just give us money and we won't give you what you want? How does that make any sense at all?
It makes plenty of sense. That sort of attitude is exactly what one would expect from a company with a monopoly position in the market. In this case it is the government-granted and government-enforced copyright monopoly.
If piracy didn't exist these guys would really have the monopoly that they think they have and they would be able to get away with such an anti-customer atitude.
The blame lies with those who let them run free in the first place by deregulating the financial sector, not on animals following their instincts.
The deregulators absolutely deserve blame, but so do the predators here. They aren't animals, they are people who have free will and the ability to make moral decisions and thus they have culpability unlike an actual wolf.
Dogs and man are the primary cursorial hunters on this planet, and we have formed a partnership. It is no surprise that Obama devours his partners, something no honorable man would do.
Lol. What a fabulous display of ignorance. You sound like those Taliban who said George Bush was a dishonorable man because he doesn't wear a beard.
Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese are just a few of the cultures where eating dog is unremarkable. As for being a "partner" a lot of muslims consider dog to be a dirty unclean animal.
Dog is tasty. I just can't vote for someone who puts pineapple on his pizza.
Practically nobody in Hawaii puts pineapple on pizza. Hardly anyone in Hawaii even cooks pineapple, we eat it fresh or at worst canned. I never even heard of "hawaiian pizza" until I moved to the mainland. Wikipedia says it was first created in Canada.
Man, reading this reminds me of those audiophile douchebags that insist that records sound 'warmer' and go into all of these nonsensical explanations about sound texture and other dumb shit when in reality, it's mostly all in their head and they're talking out of their ass.
If it really does remind you of that, then you aren't paying attention. Grain is a characteristic of film that a good cinematographer uses, just as he uses things like exposure, focus, lens-flare and depth of field. Digitally removing grain from a movie where the cinematographer made artistic decisions regarding the grain is the equivalent of amping up the saturation, blowing out the contrast or even chopping off the edges of the picture - it is destructive to the artist's intent. Grain is part of the creation not part of the playback, unlike the "warmth" that vacuum tubes add to music (and which can be simulated with the right digital filters).
Grain is such a basic part of modern cinematography that a fair number of movies shot on digital have had artifical grain added in post.
I don't think film is going anywhere and digital most certainly is not going anywhere.
Film is on life support already. By 2013 all US theaters will be digital. Over 90% of all primetime tv is already shot on digital.
The GP argued that "believer" is a synonym for "unreasonable" and on that issue the GP incorrect. And arrogant. Reeling off a list of facts that many religious people would also refute doesn't change that.
He appears to be trying to prove his claim about rebuttals not working on true believers by demonstrating it personally.
Rebuttals are known to not work against believers. Why are you bringing up a proposal for which we have ample evidence of failure?
Maybe because I DID NOT PROPOSE THAT. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
These people are always quoted, but I've yet to meet a single one. No matter if it's child porn or nazis, there is this straw man. Do you really think there is much of a fence to sit on?
People are not born bigots, they are the product of their environments. Through constant exposure to bigotted opinions they become more and more bigotted themselves. That process is much easier when there is no one there to say otherwise.
But if you have a better idea, then let's hear it. All I see from you is fatalism, the kind that leads directly to censorship.
And frankly, those who lack the necessary brain power to recognize the inherent worth (or lack thereof) of the book will not be dissuaded by annotations, true as they may be.
Most of those types will probably never actually read anything but quotations taken out of context by spinmeisters anyway. If the government really wanted to fight the idiocy they'd run a website with straightforward rebuttals instead of just annotations in a printed copy. That way should any particular quotation become "popular" the website could be updated with a persuasive rebuttal to not only the quotation but whatever larger point the spinmiester was trying to make by citing the quotation. Do a good job with such a website and google's algorithms will probably make it the first hit on searches for any popular quotation - kind of like how snopes is frequently the top hit for any random urban legend.
It wouldn't be perfect and it wouldn't change the minds of the hardcore, but it would give those who are on the fence easy access to counter arguments - and really that's the best you can hope for in a free society.
Forest and trees. The exact rate isn't really all that pertinent to the discussion. But 3 cents per pageview is a $30 CPM which is practically unheard of.
I suppose you would rather pay cash for every web page you visit?
Holy fuck yes.
If there were a system that efficiently and anonymously let me pay ~0.01 cents per web page viewed I would take that in a heart beat. User targetted advertisements are filling the role of micropayments but they come with all kinds of hidden costs. Civilization would be much better off if the net were not so utterly dependent on the advertising financial model. I'm not saying eliminate it, I'm saying we need alternatives.
How is it the services fault if the user uses the same password on all services?
Using the same password everywhere is what normal people do. Not because they are stupid, but because password authentication systems simply do not scale. Normal people can handle 2 or 3 different passwords at most. Expecting normal people to keep track of 5+ unique passwords is a losing proposition.
Sometimes it's amazing how much like the government they are. Things almost never make sense and when they actually do everyone is shocked and amazed.
That is the nature of any large organization of people, there is no real cure for it. It is the yin to the yang of the multiplier effect of large organizations.
I feel less inteligent after having read this article... help me!
And yet everything you listed is typical of regular users and hotmail's target audience is regular users. The author may be a dolt because he failed to apply the expertise that is a requirement of his job, but when you have to be an expert to properly use a consumer-grade service, the real problem lies squarely with the service, not the user.
Tell me exactly why it is our responsibility to find ways to assist developing regions.
Because a rising tide floats all boats. In this case I'd much rather have filipinos learn to speak american standard english than something like learning to speak chinese because the long-term effects are good for the USA in general.
There are americans that would love call center work. It beats a lot of other bad jobs.
The same argument can be made for any job at all and maybe that's how you feel too. However, not all of us see the world economy as a zero-sum game.
You clearly don't know what 'appeal to authority' means. Go ahead, google that too... I can wait. -_-
All you did was hand-wave about textbooks and laws. Then you bolded your beliefs but have yet to do anything to support your claim. I think you've created a new logical fallacy, proof by bolding.
Here's some more bait for you...
"... the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference... is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
"citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access." Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. .." Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
"The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
"The right of the citizen to drive on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a fundamental constitutional right which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
"Every citizen has an unalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty." People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
The justices never said you can drive on public roads without a license,
Guess what? Neither did I. You are so hung up on absolute rights being the only kind of right that you went down that rabbit hole all on your own.
It's not a belief. It is a matter of law... firmly established in many textbooks and independently verifiable
Ah, false appeal to authority, textbooks even. So, you've given up on your original argument that rights that are not absolute are not rights at all, then? Good, because that was a lame-ass, knee-jerk argument to begin with.
The problem with your "firmly established" belief is that for every citation in favor of your belief there is one in opposition. Here's a handful, there's more where they came from...
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
So, with your bullshit out of the way, we are back to applying critical thinking skills. The freedom of movement that is constricted to walking alone is no freedom at all.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right,
Bull-fucking-shit.
Driving is a right that derives directly from the right to freedom of movement. And don't even try to say that freedom of movement means people are able to walk wherever they want but nothing more than that because such an arbitrary limitation would reduce the practicality of freedom of movement to no freedom at all.
I don't know how that works, you get taxes for making money, the company pays those taxes,which is income from the company, which you end up having to pay taxes on.
It works because the tax rate is not 100%. Same sort of thing happens for basically any non-deductible expense that a company pays for an employee - they pay for the expense and then they pay for the tax on that money too using a basic formula that handles the tail recursion of taxing the tax.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that the entire of goal of astroturfing is to make it as hard as possible to distinguish astroturf from genuine opinion. If you can't tell the difference then you can't unfriend only the astroturfers. Especially when the astroturfer realyl is genuine 90% of the time and only schills on rare occasion.
I was going to watch season 4 of Breaking Bad on Amazon Prime but it was $4 an episode. Way too much who does Amazon think will pay that?
The one guy who strips off the DRM and then puts it up as a torrent.
it's.... it's almost like.... they don't *want* our money, like they see the new technology and say... no, we refuse to be compatible with your phone and laptop and tablet and etc, will you please just give us money and we won't give you what you want? How does that make any sense at all?
It makes plenty of sense. That sort of attitude is exactly what one would expect from a company with a monopoly position in the market. In this case it is the government-granted and government-enforced copyright monopoly.
If piracy didn't exist these guys would really have the monopoly that they think they have and they would be able to get away with such an anti-customer atitude.
As for being a "partner" a lot of muslims consider dog to be a dirty unclean animal.
Yes, Muslims are hateful bigots. Your point?
Irony meter overload.
The blame lies with those who let them run free in the first place by deregulating the financial sector, not on animals following their instincts.
The deregulators absolutely deserve blame, but so do the predators here. They aren't animals, they are people who have free will and the ability to make moral decisions and thus they have culpability unlike an actual wolf.
Dogs and man are the primary cursorial hunters on this planet, and we have formed a partnership. It is no surprise that Obama devours his partners, something no honorable man would do.
Lol. What a fabulous display of ignorance. You sound like those Taliban who said George Bush was a dishonorable man because he doesn't wear a beard.
Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese are just a few of the cultures where eating dog is unremarkable. As for being a "partner" a lot of muslims consider dog to be a dirty unclean animal.
Dog is tasty. I just can't vote for someone who puts pineapple on his pizza.
Practically nobody in Hawaii puts pineapple on pizza. Hardly anyone in Hawaii even cooks pineapple, we eat it fresh or at worst canned. I never even heard of "hawaiian pizza" until I moved to the mainland. Wikipedia says it was first created in Canada.
Man, reading this reminds me of those audiophile douchebags that insist that records sound 'warmer' and go into all of these nonsensical explanations about sound texture and other dumb shit when in reality, it's mostly all in their head and they're talking out of their ass.
If it really does remind you of that, then you aren't paying attention. Grain is a characteristic of film that a good cinematographer uses, just as he uses things like exposure, focus, lens-flare and depth of field. Digitally removing grain from a movie where the cinematographer made artistic decisions regarding the grain is the equivalent of amping up the saturation, blowing out the contrast or even chopping off the edges of the picture - it is destructive to the artist's intent. Grain is part of the creation not part of the playback, unlike the "warmth" that vacuum tubes add to music (and which can be simulated with the right digital filters).
Grain is such a basic part of modern cinematography that a fair number of movies shot on digital have had artifical grain added in post.
I don't think film is going anywhere and digital most certainly is not going anywhere.
Film is on life support already. By 2013 all US theaters will be digital. Over 90% of all primetime tv is already shot on digital.
The GP argued that "believer" is a synonym for "unreasonable" and on that issue the GP incorrect. And arrogant. Reeling off a list of facts that many religious people would also refute doesn't change that.
He appears to be trying to prove his claim about rebuttals not working on true believers by demonstrating it personally.
Rebuttals are known to not work against believers. Why are you bringing up a proposal for which we have ample evidence of failure?
Maybe because I DID NOT PROPOSE THAT. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
These people are always quoted, but I've yet to meet a single one. No matter if it's child porn or nazis, there is this straw man. Do you really think there is much of a fence to sit on?
People are not born bigots, they are the product of their environments. Through constant exposure to bigotted opinions they become more and more bigotted themselves. That process is much easier when there is no one there to say otherwise.
But if you have a better idea, then let's hear it. All I see from you is fatalism, the kind that leads directly to censorship.
And frankly, those who lack the necessary brain power to recognize the inherent worth (or lack thereof) of the book will not be dissuaded by annotations, true as they may be.
Most of those types will probably never actually read anything but quotations taken out of context by spinmeisters anyway. If the government really wanted to fight the idiocy they'd run a website with straightforward rebuttals instead of just annotations in a printed copy. That way should any particular quotation become "popular" the website could be updated with a persuasive rebuttal to not only the quotation but whatever larger point the spinmiester was trying to make by citing the quotation. Do a good job with such a website and google's algorithms will probably make it the first hit on searches for any popular quotation - kind of like how snopes is frequently the top hit for any random urban legend.
It wouldn't be perfect and it wouldn't change the minds of the hardcore, but it would give those who are on the fence easy access to counter arguments - and really that's the best you can hope for in a free society.
Forest and trees.
The exact rate isn't really all that pertinent to the discussion.
But 3 cents per pageview is a $30 CPM which is practically unheard of.
I suppose you would rather pay cash for every web page you visit?
Holy fuck yes.
If there were a system that efficiently and anonymously let me pay ~0.01 cents per web page viewed I would take that in a heart beat. User targetted advertisements are filling the role of micropayments but they come with all kinds of hidden costs. Civilization would be much better off if the net were not so utterly dependent on the advertising financial model. I'm not saying eliminate it, I'm saying we need alternatives.
How is it the services fault if the user uses the same password on all services?
Using the same password everywhere is what normal people do. Not because they are stupid, but because password authentication systems simply do not scale. Normal people can handle 2 or 3 different passwords at most. Expecting normal people to keep track of 5+ unique passwords is a losing proposition.
Sometimes it's amazing how much like the government they are. Things almost never make sense and when they actually do everyone is shocked and amazed.
That is the nature of any large organization of people, there is no real cure for it. It is the yin to the yang of the multiplier effect of large organizations.
I feel less inteligent after having read this article... help me!
And yet everything you listed is typical of regular users and hotmail's target audience is regular users. The author may be a dolt because he failed to apply the expertise that is a requirement of his job, but when you have to be an expert to properly use a consumer-grade service, the real problem lies squarely with the service, not the user.
Tell me exactly why it is our responsibility to find ways to assist developing regions.
Because a rising tide floats all boats. In this case I'd much rather have filipinos learn to speak american standard english than something like learning to speak chinese because the long-term effects are good for the USA in general.
There are americans that would love call center work. It beats a lot of other bad jobs.
The same argument can be made for any job at all and maybe that's how you feel too. However, not all of us see the world economy as a zero-sum game.
In other words, internet piracy fights terrorism.
Which would be better fight?
Pirates versus Terrorists
or
Pirates versus Ninjas
You clearly don't know what 'appeal to authority' means. Go ahead, google that too... I can wait. -_-
All you did was hand-wave about textbooks and laws. Then you bolded your beliefs but have yet to do anything to support your claim. I think you've created a new logical fallacy, proof by bolding.
Here's some more bait for you...
The justices never said you can drive on public roads without a license,
Guess what? Neither did I. You are so hung up on absolute rights being the only kind of right that you went down that rabbit hole all on your own.
It's not a belief. It is a matter of law ... firmly established in many textbooks and independently verifiable
Ah, false appeal to authority, textbooks even.
So, you've given up on your original argument that rights that are not absolute are not rights at all, then? Good, because that was a lame-ass, knee-jerk argument to begin with.
The problem with your "firmly established" belief is that for every citation in favor of your belief there is one in opposition. Here's a handful, there's more where they came from...
So, with your bullshit out of the way, we are back to applying critical thinking skills.
The freedom of movement that is constricted to walking alone is no freedom at all.
Is that really the justification for your belief that "driving is a privilege?"
If that's your argument, you are going to have to reconcile it with the exact same issue of firearms permits.
Posting Photos of Olympics Could End Land You In Court
What's an End Land?
The place where people who have nothing better to do but get worked up over pedestrian typos go to live.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right,
Bull-fucking-shit.
Driving is a right that derives directly from the right to freedom of movement. And don't even try to say that freedom of movement means people are able to walk wherever they want but nothing more than that because such an arbitrary limitation would reduce the practicality of freedom of movement to no freedom at all.
I don't know how that works, you get taxes for making money, the company pays those taxes,which is income from the company, which you end up having to pay taxes on.
It works because the tax rate is not 100%. Same sort of thing happens for basically any non-deductible expense that a company pays for an employee - they pay for the expense and then they pay for the tax on that money too using a basic formula that handles the tail recursion of taxing the tax.
(also, FTFY)
He predicted you would do that.