This is patently ridiculous. Expanding knowledge by constantly entertaining alternative theories is what science does all the time. Creationists and all forms of other wackos try to get their work noticed all the time, but they get laughed out precisely because their work is bad. It's like saying we should give Super Bowl trophies to every team every year, regardless of whether they've even won a single game. Science suffers crackpot theories all the time, and they always prove to be bad because they're crackpot theories. That's what makes them crackpot theories.
And the dogmatists are, by definition, on only one side of the debate. They fail to comprehend science in even a fundamental way, and as a result we get idiotic statements like this. Science is skepticism, the exact opposite of dogma. Science is not "hey that theory sounds entertaining, let's say we like it too", it's "does this theory make predictions that we can test?" The crackpots are tried and tested all the time and they aren't accepted because they try to pass off the former as the latter.
How much of our promised aid to Haiti have we actually delivered?
We aren't that great at responding to disasters. We're good at making big promises that make ourselves look good to the media, but it seems like on average we maybe deliver 10% of that.
The problem is that her values don't allow her to use those programs, even if she paid in to them.
And no, she didn't pay in to them her entire life. She was born in 1905, SS was created in 1935, and Medicare was created in 1965. By her own standard as set forth in her seminal works Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and other far-right standards, she was a welfare queen. If it's true that she attempted to hide her theft by using another name then it's clear that she knew she was violating her own standards.
When has Poole ever said that the cause of anonymity should stand above and beyond the law, or that supporting it necessarily demands that one put anonymity before even the law? Or anything remotely close that resembles "Anonymity > Rule of Law"?
You are misconstruing Poole's advocacy of anonymity with that for absolute anonymity that is above and before everything else. And then you call him a hypocrite for failing to conform to the position you've invented for him. Also known as the straw man fallacy.
Your insistence that anonymity must be placed above the law looks like an attempt to discredit anonymity as nothing more than a haven for criminality, hence you sound like a troll.
Do you know any previously-closeted gays? Or currently-closed ones that haven't come out to everyone yet?
Have you ever lived in a small community?
Have you ever tried asking friends and family members about something personal and embarrassing to you, like erectile dysfunction? In a restaurant, or at a ball game?
Beyond the rare cases where one is actually threatened with death or imprisonment, social ostracization occurs all the time, and stigmas are attached to practically everything, especially in small communities. These make it difficult, even unbearable, to live openly. I recommend you read these Wiki articles:
One can hope for a perfect world where nobody has anything to fear from sharing everything with anyone, but such a world is unrealistic in the extreme.
I can go on 4chan and find people asking about things like erectile dysfunction, but I can't imagine that many people are willing to join groups about that on Facebook. That's the value of anonymity.
Why do you think that anonymity should extend to protecting blatantly criminal behavior? What kind of person does it take to even ask that question? By your statements you seem to want 4chan and anonymity in general to be a haven for lawlessness, as if you have something against the very idea of anonymity. I think you are trolling.
That's precisely the problem. Zuckerberg is corrupted by his wealth. Zuckerberg pursues personal wealth, while Moot (presumably) does not. Even if it's only presumably, he isn't making his fortune through increasingly creepy invasions of his users' privacy.
Would it be too much to expect that everyone to realize it is both corrupt and fallacious to claim that Zuckerberg's ideas are superior because of his vast wealth? Anyone who jumps to defend Zuckerberg purely on his wealth alone, without addressing the arguments, is defending corruption itself. Ignoring the merits of the arguments, if anyone is right, wouldn't it be the one whose ideas are not tainted by the corruption of wealth? (Unless of course the subject is how to most efficiently accumulate wealth, but that is not what Moot is trying to do.)
The linked article doesn't clearly say what crime the blogger is supposed to have committed (tortuitous interference?), and "having your facts straight" doesn't indemnify you from everything.
I'm not taking sides and criticizing the blogger, but the reporter could have done a better job of explaining how a jury found him guilty and of what crime.
You can tell which wallet is his because it says "Bad Ass Mother Fucker" on it. It's a Pulp Fiction reference, and a really awkwardly placed one in this summary.
It's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party. You make all this hay about being correct and accurate and yet you undermine your own point by revealing a bias toward political slurs over accuracy.
Also, a few states currently apportion some of their electors based on the votes in their individual congressional districts, in order to more accurately approximate popular vote rather than winner-take-all. So in 2008 Nebraska gave the Democrats one elector and the Republicans four electors.
Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see.
Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
Was Episode I not bad enough by itself??? I understand that converting 2D movies to 3D is probably the second worst thing to happen to cinema, but you don't need to combine them! There is no prize for worst movie idea.
I'm sure if you looked you could find more articles that strengthen the association, but the cables definitely had an effect in confirming the Tunisians' suspicions about the extravagance and corruption of their ruling elite and pushing them further toward revolution. Maybe they would have revolted without the leaked cables, but the leaked cables definitely helped.
> So you would agree that Bradly Manning is responsible for every single civilian death in Northern Africa (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc.)?
Would you agree that Jesus is responsible for every death committed in the name of a Christian god? That Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington are responsible for every death from every bomb dropped by a US plane or bullet fired by a US soldier?
> My guess is that the only organized groups there are in these places are Islamic fundamentalists that will institute a pan-Islamic calphate.
Rather than guess why don't you use the wonderful resource known as the Internet to educate yourself? As far as Egypt and Tunisia go, the people are fairly well educated and a lot of the necessary institutions for democracy are already there, as well as a strong sense of nationalism. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism is just the latest boogeyman, like the communists in the 1950s.
One can reasonably argue that the leaked cables was the match that lit the powderkeg. Wikileaks' revelation of the extravagance and corruption of the Tunisian governing elite is what motivated the Tunisians to finally revolt. That revolt would not have occurred if the strong desire wasn't already there, if there wasn't already a long history of simmering resentment. And Tunisia's revolution (or revolt if that's what you call a revolution as it's occurring) obviously motivated Arabs across the rest of the region to do the same.
How did our enemies gain operable knowledge from the leaked information? Unless you can demonstrate that they did, then by your reasoning Manning did not aid the enemy.
In fact, the information released was sent to Wikileaks, which was published throughout many western newspapers after being filtered by Wikileaks and the newspapers. And from the information released, it's quite clear that the aim and purpose of the leak was not to aid the enemy, however tangentially that may have occurred, but to inform the public, specifically the American public that has a right to know what our government is doing in secret. Unless you want to argue that the American public or the world at large is the enemy, you cannot argue that Manning is guilty of aiding the enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
This is patently ridiculous. Expanding knowledge by constantly entertaining alternative theories is what science does all the time. Creationists and all forms of other wackos try to get their work noticed all the time, but they get laughed out precisely because their work is bad. It's like saying we should give Super Bowl trophies to every team every year, regardless of whether they've even won a single game. Science suffers crackpot theories all the time, and they always prove to be bad because they're crackpot theories. That's what makes them crackpot theories.
And the dogmatists are, by definition, on only one side of the debate. They fail to comprehend science in even a fundamental way, and as a result we get idiotic statements like this. Science is skepticism, the exact opposite of dogma. Science is not "hey that theory sounds entertaining, let's say we like it too", it's "does this theory make predictions that we can test?" The crackpots are tried and tested all the time and they aren't accepted because they try to pass off the former as the latter.
When people wonder why it is that the US is falling behind other countries in science education, this is why.
How much of our promised aid to Haiti have we actually delivered?
We aren't that great at responding to disasters. We're good at making big promises that make ourselves look good to the media, but it seems like on average we maybe deliver 10% of that.
"but do the majority of people inside the U.S. realize how much they've lost on the world stage over the past decade?"
Democrats do. Republicans don't care, and seem to delight in flipping the bird to the rest of the world.
The problem is that her values don't allow her to use those programs, even if she paid in to them.
And no, she didn't pay in to them her entire life. She was born in 1905, SS was created in 1935, and Medicare was created in 1965. By her own standard as set forth in her seminal works Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and other far-right standards, she was a welfare queen. If it's true that she attempted to hide her theft by using another name then it's clear that she knew she was violating her own standards.
Thanks for demonstrating my point!
When has Poole ever said that the cause of anonymity should stand above and beyond the law, or that supporting it necessarily demands that one put anonymity before even the law? Or anything remotely close that resembles "Anonymity > Rule of Law"?
You are misconstruing Poole's advocacy of anonymity with that for absolute anonymity that is above and before everything else. And then you call him a hypocrite for failing to conform to the position you've invented for him. Also known as the straw man fallacy.
Your insistence that anonymity must be placed above the law looks like an attempt to discredit anonymity as nothing more than a haven for criminality, hence you sound like a troll.
Do you know any previously-closeted gays? Or currently-closed ones that haven't come out to everyone yet?
Have you ever lived in a small community?
Have you ever tried asking friends and family members about something personal and embarrassing to you, like erectile dysfunction? In a restaurant, or at a ball game?
Beyond the rare cases where one is actually threatened with death or imprisonment, social ostracization occurs all the time, and stigmas are attached to practically everything, especially in small communities. These make it difficult, even unbearable, to live openly. I recommend you read these Wiki articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_society
One can hope for a perfect world where nobody has anything to fear from sharing everything with anyone, but such a world is unrealistic in the extreme.
I can go on 4chan and find people asking about things like erectile dysfunction, but I can't imagine that many people are willing to join groups about that on Facebook. That's the value of anonymity.
Why do you think that anonymity should extend to protecting blatantly criminal behavior? What kind of person does it take to even ask that question? By your statements you seem to want 4chan and anonymity in general to be a haven for lawlessness, as if you have something against the very idea of anonymity. I think you are trolling.
That's precisely the problem. Zuckerberg is corrupted by his wealth. Zuckerberg pursues personal wealth, while Moot (presumably) does not. Even if it's only presumably, he isn't making his fortune through increasingly creepy invasions of his users' privacy.
Would it be too much to expect that everyone to realize it is both corrupt and fallacious to claim that Zuckerberg's ideas are superior because of his vast wealth? Anyone who jumps to defend Zuckerberg purely on his wealth alone, without addressing the arguments, is defending corruption itself. Ignoring the merits of the arguments, if anyone is right, wouldn't it be the one whose ideas are not tainted by the corruption of wealth? (Unless of course the subject is how to most efficiently accumulate wealth, but that is not what Moot is trying to do.)
The linked article doesn't clearly say what crime the blogger is supposed to have committed (tortuitous interference?), and "having your facts straight" doesn't indemnify you from everything.
I'm not taking sides and criticizing the blogger, but the reporter could have done a better job of explaining how a jury found him guilty and of what crime.
You can tell which wallet is his because it says "Bad Ass Mother Fucker" on it. It's a Pulp Fiction reference, and a really awkwardly placed one in this summary.
Why are they unstable?
-1 Pedantic
It's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party. You make all this hay about being correct and accurate and yet you undermine your own point by revealing a bias toward political slurs over accuracy.
Also, a few states currently apportion some of their electors based on the votes in their individual congressional districts, in order to more accurately approximate popular vote rather than winner-take-all. So in 2008 Nebraska gave the Democrats one elector and the Republicans four electors.
Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see.
Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
I see a "noooooooooo" tag. How many "o"s is that supposed to have?
Was Episode I not bad enough by itself??? I understand that converting 2D movies to 3D is probably the second worst thing to happen to cinema, but you don't need to combine them! There is no prize for worst movie idea.
"The dragons are coming. Prepare to dance."
In case you didn't miss the next response to your parent, check it out: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2020186&cid=35368210
He links to an article that answers your question: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/02/wikileaks-exclusive-book-extract
I'm sure if you looked you could find more articles that strengthen the association, but the cables definitely had an effect in confirming the Tunisians' suspicions about the extravagance and corruption of their ruling elite and pushing them further toward revolution. Maybe they would have revolted without the leaked cables, but the leaked cables definitely helped.
> So you would agree that Bradly Manning is responsible for every single civilian death in Northern Africa (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc.)?
Would you agree that Jesus is responsible for every death committed in the name of a Christian god? That Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington are responsible for every death from every bomb dropped by a US plane or bullet fired by a US soldier?
> My guess is that the only organized groups there are in these places are Islamic fundamentalists that will institute a pan-Islamic calphate.
Rather than guess why don't you use the wonderful resource known as the Internet to educate yourself? As far as Egypt and Tunisia go, the people are fairly well educated and a lot of the necessary institutions for democracy are already there, as well as a strong sense of nationalism. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism is just the latest boogeyman, like the communists in the 1950s.
One can reasonably argue that the leaked cables was the match that lit the powderkeg. Wikileaks' revelation of the extravagance and corruption of the Tunisian governing elite is what motivated the Tunisians to finally revolt. That revolt would not have occurred if the strong desire wasn't already there, if there wasn't already a long history of simmering resentment. And Tunisia's revolution (or revolt if that's what you call a revolution as it's occurring) obviously motivated Arabs across the rest of the region to do the same.
How did our enemies gain operable knowledge from the leaked information? Unless you can demonstrate that they did, then by your reasoning Manning did not aid the enemy.
In fact, the information released was sent to Wikileaks, which was published throughout many western newspapers after being filtered by Wikileaks and the newspapers. And from the information released, it's quite clear that the aim and purpose of the leak was not to aid the enemy, however tangentially that may have occurred, but to inform the public, specifically the American public that has a right to know what our government is doing in secret. Unless you want to argue that the American public or the world at large is the enemy, you cannot argue that Manning is guilty of aiding the enemy.