But... but... if modern culture has taught me anything its that my half-assed, poorly thought-out, after-10-minutes-consideration, opinion is every bit as valuable as any experts!
And if I can't be bothered to share my half-assed opinion, I should at least have the option to "like" someone elses', damn it!
The Register is OK, but that's simply due to its relatively small size of readers and commentators.
You'll see it all over the internet; once a site passes a certain threshold, it starts to attract the loons. These are the guys who are either just trolls, or are hell bent on pushing their own pet theory, campaign or particular way of thinking, regardless of how appropriate it is to the article topic. These are the guys who comment far more than anyone else, simply because they always have something to say. Unfortunately what they have to say is rarely interesting, relevant or comprehensible. But once the loons start arguing with each other your comment section is a lost cause and the tsunami of dross drowns out everything else.....And then you you have the Youtube comment sections; cesspits of stupidity that make you despair of humanity.
Once a comments section reaches that state I rarely bother with it. Why contribute to the discussion if you know your post is just going to disappear, submerged by crap?
Any mature adult wouldn't write a two paragraph analysis in reply to a simple observation. Your evaluation of what's "angry" is also needing a bit or a retune.
You had me right up until you mentioned the "Genius Bar". Any company prepared to call their entry-level tech support staff "geniuses" shouldn't be humoured. They should be mocked.
The assertion of causal exclusivity of evolutionary processes to explaining biology, has never been observed, nor has it been tested, nor is it testable, nor will it ever be testable.
You may be right, but is there any other possible and credible explanation that has any scientific backing? So we're really left with evolution as the only one in the running. But I'm sure any genuine attempt to construct another theory would be given a fair hearing, as long as it doesn't start; "A long time ago, an entity for which there is no evidence that doesn't require faith, decided to make people."
But we are agreed, the claim that the theory of evolution could ever be used to prove the non-existence of a deity is nonsense. Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to say about god, either pro or con.
Evolution is fact because it has been observed. I suppose there remains a possibility that what has been observed has been totally misunderstood by everyone, but that applies for just about any fact.
The theory of evolution is not a fact. However, if the theory of evolution is proven wrong, that will not invalidate evolution, which remains a fact. As things stand, however, the theory of evolution is looking pretty robust in providing an explanation for evolution. However, like all good science theories, it is always up for being challenged and adapted in the light of observed evidence.
The key issue understanding the difference between "the theory of evolution" and "evolution". They are not the same thing, and if an argument challenging evolution has its basis in misunderstanding that, then it has failed before it has even started.
Groups of people bind best if they have some external threat to bind against. It's not the only way to maintain group cohesion and loyalty, but it sure helps.
It used to be that the devil (an invention chiefly of the medieval church, who found him very handy) performed this role. However, it's getting harder to convince people that there's this evil creature running about the place doing evil through magic. So he's fallen out of favour, So either a substitute is required, or at the very least a proxy.
That's where evolutionary science comes in. It's an attack on everything that your society, family and faith is based on! We must fight it! Come to church!
What also helps bind groups together admirably is the suggestion that they are an oppressed minority. It certainly helps when you really are an oppressed minority, but if you aren't, claiming you are is the next best thing. Hence the idea that christianity is under siege, when in many places it is the dominant cultural force that is sometimes the oppressor, not the oppressed. So the suggestion that liberals/guv'ment/heathens are forcing evolution on their helpless children is a powerful way of keeping the faithful in line.
Let's compare violent crime rates per 100K people: US 466, UK 2034
A bullshit comparison that has been debunked often before. The definitions used for "violent crime" are totally different in either country, so it is impossible to compare the stats in any sensible way.
I would agree with you 100%, but now more and more online setups are getting audacious enough to demand, yes demand proof of your identity. This is where the line is crossed. I can sign up for a power supply, cable, telephone and newspaper delivery. I can enter a shop and buy practically anything I want. All without being obliged to produce a birth certificate, or a governmental identifier. But some crappy website demands a copy of my paperwork, before it'll give me the privilege of viewing their adverts??
Well screw that. I do not want my bank to know what my taste in Youtube videos is. I do not want Facebook to know what newsfeeds I prefer. I do not want things joined up through a real identity because I see no advantage to me whatsoever in joining them, only disadvantages. They are already joined where it matters; in my head.
If you believe that bullying can't cause emotional problems, then you must have a very limited idea of what bullying is.
The key difference about online abuse is that it does not respect physical boundaries. It's not like you can label it as something that happened either inside or outside the school boundaries. It's everywhere at all times. So a school saying "we shouldn't be doing anything about this post, because it was sent from a home computer, but we should do something about this post, because it was from a phone during school hours" is not a tenable position to take.
Try and step away from the personalities involved for a moment. In this particular situation who is in the right, and who is the scum-bag criminal?
Personally I hope the patent troll gets pummelled into a greasy spot on the courtroom floor, and a precedent is set that applies for all other patent trolls. So, uncharacteristically, I'm rooting for doubleclick.
No, I wouldn't be fine describing Chelsea as a 72 year old from Uganda. Apart from it being factually inaccurate, her nationality plays a significant part in her current fame and why I've heard of her. So it matters.
But should a 72 year old from Uganda ever, for whatever reason, demand that as her name, I suppose I might humor her.
They already pay guys to do this, so what's the big deal?
They pay guys to watch your children in school. These guys don't need to use binoculars, they get right up close and even speak to your children! They are called teachers.
They pay guys to check on your children if they are shouting in public places. And some of these guys have vans! They are called police.
If you're letting your children online to conduct private conversations in public, then it's your head that should be on the plate.
I didn't say "Gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of people". I said Manning's gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of all people. So I'll just pass on most of that strawman you've constructed there.
Manning is not pretending to be something she's not. She is a person who prefers to be addressed and identified as feminine. That is who she is. That is 100% true and accurate. The physical nature of her various bits are of no interest or relevance to me, and very unlikely to ever be, so I'm fine with going along with that. It makes no difference to me.
Bet you a gazillion dollars they won't. Such a move would create a hierarchy of facebook user, and facebook is happy to have everyone on the same "cattle-class" interface. Indeed, that's its whole business model. Give me your data and consume your adverts!
What actual practical difference do you think it makes referring to someone as he or she? I mean actual real-life difference to your life, society, and everything? I can see some difficulties that may arise if you ever met, and one or other decided you wished a relationship. Most people have their own particular tastes where he/she might cause confusion. But do you really think you're likely to have that occur with you and Chelsea? I mean, you can dream, but don't pin any hopes on it.
Your example of a cat is laughable. Whether he or she, Manning remains a person. What gender of person is an irrelevant detail to 99.999% of all people. Claiming to be a different species isn't anything like as irrelevant.
Did someone remove the right to decide your own name too? They're falling so thick and fast now, I may have missed it.
You have the right to decide whatever name you want to be called by. I have the right to form an opinion of you based on that name. If I really hate your name, I may choose not to use it, but that won't stop it being your name. That's as far as our respective rights go.
Gender identification is a bit more involved. But declaring it a "silly whim" just shows you know nothing about it.
Have to agree, the hate he's giving Wikis is entirely unjustified. Wiki's are a tool. If you give a group a pen and a stack of paper, and they produce an unreadable mess, is that the pen's fault? Wikis are no different. Approached the correct way, by people who know what they are doing, they are an excellent method of creating quick, consistent and adaptable documentation.
Of course, if you don't have anyone responsible for writing the contents of the wiki, no standards, and just leave it open for anyone passing who takes a interest, then you are going to have problems. It'll end up inconsistent, sparse, out of date and waste of time. No-one will read it and no-one will write anything worth while in it. Good wiki content doesn't just happen.
But if you have people whose job it is to write documentation, and who want to spend most of their time concentrating on content, rather than on the publishing process, version control, file formats, browser compatibility, CSS templates, etc, etc, then a wiki is totally the way to go. There are other, excellent, tools for writing online documentation, but none I've encountered are anything like as fast and easy to compile and maintain as a good wiki.
Slashdot Mirror
But... but... if modern culture has taught me anything its that my half-assed, poorly thought-out, after-10-minutes-consideration, opinion is every bit as valuable as any experts!
And if I can't be bothered to share my half-assed opinion, I should at least have the option to "like" someone elses', damn it!
The Register is OK, but that's simply due to its relatively small size of readers and commentators.
You'll see it all over the internet; once a site passes a certain threshold, it starts to attract the loons. These are the guys who are either just trolls, or are hell bent on pushing their own pet theory, campaign or particular way of thinking, regardless of how appropriate it is to the article topic. These are the guys who comment far more than anyone else, simply because they always have something to say. Unfortunately what they have to say is rarely interesting, relevant or comprehensible. But once the loons start arguing with each other your comment section is a lost cause and the tsunami of dross drowns out everything else. ....And then you you have the Youtube comment sections; cesspits of stupidity that make you despair of humanity.
Once a comments section reaches that state I rarely bother with it. Why contribute to the discussion if you know your post is just going to disappear, submerged by crap?
Any mature adult wouldn't write a two paragraph analysis in reply to a simple observation. Your evaluation of what's "angry" is also needing a bit or a retune.
You had me right up until you mentioned the "Genius Bar". Any company prepared to call their entry-level tech support staff "geniuses" shouldn't be humoured. They should be mocked.
The assertion of causal exclusivity of evolutionary processes to explaining biology, has never been observed, nor has it been tested, nor is it testable, nor will it ever be testable.
You may be right, but is there any other possible and credible explanation that has any scientific backing? So we're really left with evolution as the only one in the running. But I'm sure any genuine attempt to construct another theory would be given a fair hearing, as long as it doesn't start; "A long time ago, an entity for which there is no evidence that doesn't require faith, decided to make people."
But we are agreed, the claim that the theory of evolution could ever be used to prove the non-existence of a deity is nonsense. Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to say about god, either pro or con.
Evolution is fact because it has been observed. I suppose there remains a possibility that what has been observed has been totally misunderstood by everyone, but that applies for just about any fact.
The theory of evolution is not a fact. However, if the theory of evolution is proven wrong, that will not invalidate evolution, which remains a fact. As things stand, however, the theory of evolution is looking pretty robust in providing an explanation for evolution. However, like all good science theories, it is always up for being challenged and adapted in the light of observed evidence.
The key issue understanding the difference between "the theory of evolution" and "evolution". They are not the same thing, and if an argument challenging evolution has its basis in misunderstanding that, then it has failed before it has even started.
Groups of people bind best if they have some external threat to bind against. It's not the only way to maintain group cohesion and loyalty, but it sure helps.
It used to be that the devil (an invention chiefly of the medieval church, who found him very handy) performed this role. However, it's getting harder to convince people that there's this evil creature running about the place doing evil through magic. So he's fallen out of favour, So either a substitute is required, or at the very least a proxy.
That's where evolutionary science comes in. It's an attack on everything that your society, family and faith is based on! We must fight it! Come to church!
What also helps bind groups together admirably is the suggestion that they are an oppressed minority. It certainly helps when you really are an oppressed minority, but if you aren't, claiming you are is the next best thing. Hence the idea that christianity is under siege, when in many places it is the dominant cultural force that is sometimes the oppressor, not the oppressed. So the suggestion that liberals/guv'ment/heathens are forcing evolution on their helpless children is a powerful way of keeping the faithful in line.
Ahh, but if you RTFA, you'll see he did not nod his head yes. He shook his head yes, which I didn't know was even possible.
It's probably a secret Illuminati signal.
Let's compare violent crime rates per 100K people: US 466, UK 2034
A bullshit comparison that has been debunked often before. The definitions used for "violent crime" are totally different in either country, so it is impossible to compare the stats in any sensible way.
I would agree with you 100%, but now more and more online setups are getting audacious enough to demand, yes demand proof of your identity. This is where the line is crossed. I can sign up for a power supply, cable, telephone and newspaper delivery. I can enter a shop and buy practically anything I want. All without being obliged to produce a birth certificate, or a governmental identifier. But some crappy website demands a copy of my paperwork, before it'll give me the privilege of viewing their adverts??
Well screw that. I do not want my bank to know what my taste in Youtube videos is. I do not want Facebook to know what newsfeeds I prefer. I do not want things joined up through a real identity because I see no advantage to me whatsoever in joining them, only disadvantages. They are already joined where it matters; in my head.
If you believe that bullying can't cause emotional problems, then you must have a very limited idea of what bullying is.
The key difference about online abuse is that it does not respect physical boundaries. It's not like you can label it as something that happened either inside or outside the school boundaries. It's everywhere at all times. So a school saying "we shouldn't be doing anything about this post, because it was sent from a home computer, but we should do something about this post, because it was from a phone during school hours" is not a tenable position to take.
Try and step away from the personalities involved for a moment. In this particular situation who is in the right, and who is the scum-bag criminal?
Personally I hope the patent troll gets pummelled into a greasy spot on the courtroom floor, and a precedent is set that applies for all other patent trolls. So, uncharacteristically, I'm rooting for doubleclick.
No, I wouldn't be fine describing Chelsea as a 72 year old from Uganda. Apart from it being factually inaccurate, her nationality plays a significant part in her current fame and why I've heard of her. So it matters.
But should a 72 year old from Uganda ever, for whatever reason, demand that as her name, I suppose I might humor her.
Do you think this is likely?
They already pay guys to do this, so what's the big deal?
They pay guys to watch your children in school. These guys don't need to use binoculars, they get right up close and even speak to your children! They are called teachers.
They pay guys to check on your children if they are shouting in public places. And some of these guys have vans! They are called police.
If you're letting your children online to conduct private conversations in public, then it's your head that should be on the plate.
I didn't say "Gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of people". I said Manning's gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of all people. So I'll just pass on most of that strawman you've constructed there.
Manning is not pretending to be something she's not. She is a person who prefers to be addressed and identified as feminine. That is who she is. That is 100% true and accurate. The physical nature of her various bits are of no interest or relevance to me, and very unlikely to ever be, so I'm fine with going along with that. It makes no difference to me.
Bet you a gazillion dollars they won't. Such a move would create a hierarchy of facebook user, and facebook is happy to have everyone on the same "cattle-class" interface. Indeed, that's its whole business model. Give me your data and consume your adverts!
"finally, someone that will remind us who owns facebook: the users."
Someone please mod parent as "funny", for this hilarious statement alone.
What actual practical difference do you think it makes referring to someone as he or she? I mean actual real-life difference to your life, society, and everything? I can see some difficulties that may arise if you ever met, and one or other decided you wished a relationship. Most people have their own particular tastes where he/she might cause confusion. But do you really think you're likely to have that occur with you and Chelsea? I mean, you can dream, but don't pin any hopes on it.
Your example of a cat is laughable. Whether he or she, Manning remains a person. What gender of person is an irrelevant detail to 99.999% of all people. Claiming to be a different species isn't anything like as irrelevant.
Did someone remove the right to decide your own name too? They're falling so thick and fast now, I may have missed it.
You have the right to decide whatever name you want to be called by. I have the right to form an opinion of you based on that name. If I really hate your name, I may choose not to use it, but that won't stop it being your name. That's as far as our respective rights go.
Gender identification is a bit more involved. But declaring it a "silly whim" just shows you know nothing about it.
England doesn't have a government. It also doesn't secure its borders.
Britain, however.....
If the grid goes down the whole network goes down with it. Towers, exchanges, switches, relays, the lot.
Your phone would become a tiny tablet without any connection to anything. Not entirely useless, but not much use. Then the battery would go.
Bad spelling is original creative input. Therefore copyrightable. Q.E.D.
See, if this was a wiki I could go back and edit out that annoying apostrophe that sneaked into my second sentence.
Have to agree, the hate he's giving Wikis is entirely unjustified. Wiki's are a tool. If you give a group a pen and a stack of paper, and they produce an unreadable mess, is that the pen's fault? Wikis are no different. Approached the correct way, by people who know what they are doing, they are an excellent method of creating quick, consistent and adaptable documentation.
Of course, if you don't have anyone responsible for writing the contents of the wiki, no standards, and just leave it open for anyone passing who takes a interest, then you are going to have problems. It'll end up inconsistent, sparse, out of date and waste of time. No-one will read it and no-one will write anything worth while in it. Good wiki content doesn't just happen.
But if you have people whose job it is to write documentation, and who want to spend most of their time concentrating on content, rather than on the publishing process, version control, file formats, browser compatibility, CSS templates, etc, etc, then a wiki is totally the way to go. There are other, excellent, tools for writing online documentation, but none I've encountered are anything like as fast and easy to compile and maintain as a good wiki.
manufactured by Chinese telco ZTE.
The original article was badly written and proof read, so naturally slashdot contains the exact same obvious error.