there is a body of research that shows exposing people to counter arguments, however factual, just hardens their viewpoint rather than changing it.
It is almost as if what you need is a counter-conspiracy-theory that generates a new revelation about the old conspiracy without ever directly arguing with it.
How about this: I know that medical advice should come from real doctors, not quack doctors.
Maybe we shouldn't grant "safe harbor" provisions to reprinting medical opinions from non-doctors. Require publishers to take responsibility for only publishing medical information from people who are currently qualified to give medical advice.
The problem isn't people's individual Freedom, the problem is allowing specific types of unlicensed commercial activities to bypass the normal protections for those activities, because "it's on a computer." Without the parasites making money off of the fear and ignorance of parents, then it wouldn't be a problem; it would just be regular fringe rantings at the natural rate. It is only because it is a medical issue, and medical issues are important, that there is even a problem with it in the first place.
This is very similar to the fact that in most places no license is needed to fix a computer, but you need to be a special type of licensed doctor to do heart surgery. The specific activities present different dangers. And generally speaking, the right to give medical advice is already regulated.
Wait, wait, you're accusing Facebook of having intentionally published this content because they believe it?
That's actually a rather serious accusation. And that is whose speech rights are implicated in hearings about misinformation on Facebook. Facebook.
Most of slashdot thinks they have a Right to have their Letters to the Editor published in the local newspaper, and that they're being oppressed and their frozen peaches were all stolen because their letter didn't get published.
that we're going to f'n burn the quack doctors if they keep preying on the children.
Snake oil is for adults who are old enough to understand the choice.
The implication is that society is pissed off about this problem, and people are holding hearings to talk about who to blame. But make no mistake, this is not a slippery slope; society is ready to fight over the specific issue being discussed: Intentional transmission of preventable diseases. There is no hand-wavy abstract danger, this is the hill being fought over that we're already on and "eradicated" diseases have already returned; not by accident, but by willful actions of individuals who sought to profit from fear and ignorance.
The difference is, in Putinland the people admitting opposition expect to be secretly executed for it, and having 5% admitting opposition signifies a huge amount of latent demand for the ability to be opposed.
In the other places you named, the number includes basically everybody with a mild preference for somebody else, not just those willing to fight to to the death over it.
Places where it is dangerous to dissent have to worry about 9% becoming 95% very rapidly if people's emotions change, or their perception of the government's current power level changes.
He doesn't, it just isn't part of his job. Just like, setting the rules for encryption aren't part of his job, so his comments are just random musings by some old guy with some unrelated important job.
This is all normal and consistent. I wouldn't expect the leader of FEMA to know shit about encryption. And I wouldn't care, same as with this schmuck.
You know, I've been commenting on Slashdot for about 17 years. Usually if someone takes the time to respond to one of my comments, it's worth my time to read it. Of course every now and then, I've received responses to my comments that I thought were disagreeable, or logically flawed, or just wrong for some reason.
But I think this is the first time I've encountered a response that is just flat-out dumb. Hats off to you, sir.
And yet, "Misrepresentation + red herring" still equals "Ur rong!"
Maybe my response was "dumb" because it doesn't require a smart response to see how stupid an argument consisting of 100% misrepresentation is. You even found some dog-whistle words like "ether," but why attempt a smart response that pulls in some Feynman quotes about the similarity between the concept of an "ether" and his theory of quantum electrodynamics? If you were going to understand a smart response, your comment would have been "flamebait" instead of just being "horse shit." But I don't think you even realize that you were being a such a maroon, so why try that hard?
Weird Al released "I Can't Watch This" in 1992, long before most people even knew what the "internet" was or had local access. I listen to that song way more often than I watch a television. Jefferson Airplane released the song Plastic Fantastic Lover in 1967, before I was born, which is also about television. And it dovetails nicely with social media concerns; the last verse is
Data Control and IBM Science is mankind's brother But all I see is drainin' me On my plastic fantastic lover
Online scams are nothing new; in the olden days they were conducted by mail. And like the internet, just because it is scammy and you lose your money doesn't mean it is illegal; they even have chain stores where you can "rent to own" a $300 couch for $20/month for the rest of your life. I remember in the mid 90s a co-worker showed me a "Finger Hut" catalog which was basically the same thing.
Maybe you just like low quality media too much, and so you're too hurt when it turns out they don't love you back?
If you don't like shows getting cut, my advice, wait until after it is finished running, and watch the re-runs. That way you know what you're getting into, and if the fans ended up happy or sad about the time invested in fandom.
It is like people crying that the Beatles broke up. The music is all still there.
If the streaming services are running stuff that is going to just disappear, it must not have very much value. The Star Wars Christmas Special survived the ages, as did Leonard Nimoy's music video of The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins. Surely with modern technology, things of value are getting preserved.
You can't model a complex system only by sniffing your farts. If you fart and say, "That doesn't smell infectious to me" that tells you nothing at all about the system and if it works in a similar way to an infectious agent; or not.
While I don't agree with the anti-vaccine crowd, the last thing we need is for Amazon / Google / Facebook to become the arbiters as to what we think, see, and hear.
This is the theoretically dumbest possible comment; the mythical "perfect stupidity" that is normally only used in modeling.
What the fuck did you think "publisher" meant in the first place?!?!?!??
Slashdot Mirror
Or even, the point could be that the children aren't the ones making the choice, but they're the ones the choice most directly affects.
there is a body of research that shows exposing people to counter arguments, however factual, just hardens their viewpoint rather than changing it.
It is almost as if what you need is a counter-conspiracy-theory that generates a new revelation about the old conspiracy without ever directly arguing with it.
How about this: I know that medical advice should come from real doctors, not quack doctors.
Maybe we shouldn't grant "safe harbor" provisions to reprinting medical opinions from non-doctors. Require publishers to take responsibility for only publishing medical information from people who are currently qualified to give medical advice.
The problem isn't people's individual Freedom, the problem is allowing specific types of unlicensed commercial activities to bypass the normal protections for those activities, because "it's on a computer." Without the parasites making money off of the fear and ignorance of parents, then it wouldn't be a problem; it would just be regular fringe rantings at the natural rate. It is only because it is a medical issue, and medical issues are important, that there is even a problem with it in the first place.
This is very similar to the fact that in most places no license is needed to fix a computer, but you need to be a special type of licensed doctor to do heart surgery. The specific activities present different dangers. And generally speaking, the right to give medical advice is already regulated.
"If you get 'em, stick 'em."
Maybe this whole problem could be solved with a bounty and a dart gun.
You can. And, I strongly suggest you would benefit from looking up what that phrase actually means. And what the legal conclusion is.
The Right of stupid people to say what they like?
Wait, wait, you're accusing Facebook of having intentionally published this content because they believe it?
That's actually a rather serious accusation. And that is whose speech rights are implicated in hearings about misinformation on Facebook. Facebook.
Most of slashdot thinks they have a Right to have their Letters to the Editor published in the local newspaper, and that they're being oppressed and their frozen peaches were all stolen because their letter didn't get published.
The implication of this "story" is
that we're going to f'n burn the quack doctors if they keep preying on the children.
Snake oil is for adults who are old enough to understand the choice.
The implication is that society is pissed off about this problem, and people are holding hearings to talk about who to blame. But make no mistake, this is not a slippery slope; society is ready to fight over the specific issue being discussed: Intentional transmission of preventable diseases. There is no hand-wavy abstract danger, this is the hill being fought over that we're already on and "eradicated" diseases have already returned; not by accident, but by willful actions of individuals who sought to profit from fear and ignorance.
Around here, pretty much everybody expects to toss a few rubber chickens at the server late on a Friday night, I can't see this being a problem.
emacs has tetris and pacman built in, I don't think expecting clippy to be in there is really asking that much of them.
Never read the story, that is the same as renting out your brain to whoever pays for the slavertisements.
The difference is, in Putinland the people admitting opposition expect to be secretly executed for it, and having 5% admitting opposition signifies a huge amount of latent demand for the ability to be opposed.
In the other places you named, the number includes basically everybody with a mild preference for somebody else, not just those willing to fight to to the death over it.
Places where it is dangerous to dissent have to worry about 9% becoming 95% very rapidly if people's emotions change, or their perception of the government's current power level changes.
And why does he hate freedom so much?
He doesn't, it just isn't part of his job. Just like, setting the rules for encryption aren't part of his job, so his comments are just random musings by some old guy with some unrelated important job.
This is all normal and consistent. I wouldn't expect the leader of FEMA to know shit about encryption. And I wouldn't care, same as with this schmuck.
If the existence of idiots is enough to make you feel god-like, I recommend not returning to the surface. Ever.
A good reason not to write your key or your finger.
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side!
You know, I've been commenting on Slashdot for about 17 years. Usually if someone takes the time to respond to one of my comments, it's worth my time to read it. Of course every now and then, I've received responses to my comments that I thought were disagreeable, or logically flawed, or just wrong for some reason.
But I think this is the first time I've encountered a response that is just flat-out dumb. Hats off to you, sir.
And yet, "Misrepresentation + red herring" still equals "Ur rong!"
Maybe my response was "dumb" because it doesn't require a smart response to see how stupid an argument consisting of 100% misrepresentation is. You even found some dog-whistle words like "ether," but why attempt a smart response that pulls in some Feynman quotes about the similarity between the concept of an "ether" and his theory of quantum electrodynamics? If you were going to understand a smart response, your comment would have been "flamebait" instead of just being "horse shit." But I don't think you even realize that you were being a such a maroon, so why try that hard?
None of that is new.
Weird Al released "I Can't Watch This" in 1992, long before most people even knew what the "internet" was or had local access. I listen to that song way more often than I watch a television. Jefferson Airplane released the song Plastic Fantastic Lover in 1967, before I was born, which is also about television. And it dovetails nicely with social media concerns; the last verse is
Data Control and IBM
Science is mankind's brother
But all I see is drainin' me
On my plastic fantastic lover
Online scams are nothing new; in the olden days they were conducted by mail. And like the internet, just because it is scammy and you lose your money doesn't mean it is illegal; they even have chain stores where you can "rent to own" a $300 couch for $20/month for the rest of your life. I remember in the mid 90s a co-worker showed me a "Finger Hut" catalog which was basically the same thing.
Maybe you just like low quality media too much, and so you're too hurt when it turns out they don't love you back?
If you don't like shows getting cut, my advice, wait until after it is finished running, and watch the re-runs. That way you know what you're getting into, and if the fans ended up happy or sad about the time invested in fandom.
It is like people crying that the Beatles broke up. The music is all still there.
If the streaming services are running stuff that is going to just disappear, it must not have very much value. The Star Wars Christmas Special survived the ages, as did Leonard Nimoy's music video of The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins. Surely with modern technology, things of value are getting preserved.
I can stop eating healthily and exercising and simply SLEEP a lot more.
moar hamburder? moar hamburder? with cheeze? can haz cheezeburder?
The entertainment economy has always competed with the entertainment economy.
Guess what, they're competing with imported chocolate, too.
And skating rinks. And fancy restaurants.
Well, if it is you vs Mr Bean, my money is on the Bean.
You've got some Santorum between your teeth.
Shorter you:
Misrepresentation + red herring = Ur rong!
You can't model a complex system only by sniffing your farts. If you fart and say, "That doesn't smell infectious to me" that tells you nothing at all about the system and if it works in a similar way to an infectious agent; or not.
While I don't agree with the anti-vaccine crowd, the last thing we need is for Amazon / Google / Facebook to become the arbiters as to what we think, see, and hear.
This is the theoretically dumbest possible comment; the mythical "perfect stupidity" that is normally only used in modeling.
What the fuck did you think "publisher" meant in the first place?!?!?!??
Bogs are great data stores, look how long bog cheese keeps its flavor!
Fear-based responses are unlikely to produce outputs like "privacy."