Making it worst for 1 or 2 persons or even a hundred (realistically, how many people can you break into home and put a bug) will make it better for the privacy of a few dozen million. Go for it do your worst. Bug the shit out of those few houses. Physically. Like you used to. And like you probably already do as anyway computer communication is only 1 form. Woopy-doo.

1) people nearly always want to answer a question rather than admit "i don't know" if it is a question which is knowledge oriented.

2) if you frame a question in about "do you think people should be informed about substance A being in consumer product B" many people will simply answer Yes no matter the substance. Try it with something innocuous : it works nearly always.
 
So the study is not really about that specific question, but about a known psychological pitfall.

Most important password institution including banks , have strong password policy which would reject "123456", and "password" (heck bank even have a second factor where you use the bank card decoder device but I have no idea on how secure it is). Those password are most probably email or forums password. And as secure as i want to be, I do the same. Email not linked to a bank account and used for spam registration or whatnot => weak password like "jodie123" like my slashdot password. Bank account and email linked to it get something more like "bY7&!-;+#ASumn)(". Yeah sure you might find my jodie123 password leaked. So what ?

1) still take a very good looking guy able to go into "action scene" mode as heroe (not to count all trope which comes with it rsp the female lead)

2) the hacking is... Well as hollywoodian as ever

3) the film villain reach is unebliavable and cartoonish

4) it ends with ana ction scene.


Let us get real a real hacker film would be boring for your average hollywood audience. But that does not excuse the rest above which is your average poor heroe trope full film with just "hacking" thin coated over.

In particular, devoting some educational effort towards eradication of irrational beliefs

If that worked religion would have disappeared a some tiems ago with the itnernet. But it does not, because you cannot use rationality to convince people (rare exception may happen) that belief they came to in irrational way are wrong. Try thisd : go into a creationist forum and try to argue that radiometric dating works and explain why. Good luck with that. So if we are not even able to get ride of creationism in the west , a domain (natural selection) where there is a lot of supportive and solid science, what chance do you think you have with other irrational belief ? I will tell you what, as soon as the GOP accept as a whole global warming I will give you a smmmmaaal bit of chance.

In the absence of obvious abuse, the simple test should be: is the child fed, clothed, sheltered, and schooled?

Actually science has given us evidence to think that simplistic thought wrong. There were studies made on monkeys which showed the monkey child would prefer a "caring" mother to a feeding one which is uncaring. Further study IIRC showed that placing kids in a big home where they are all feds but not "cared" for make a lot of fucks up.
 
Take this with a grain of salt naturally as i am not a psychologist, I just read that.

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs."

here is a non provocation "you are going to hell because you do not believe, suicide is a mortal sin and you land in hell, gay and lesbian are doing a sin"

Here is a provocation :"god does not exists, you have no evidence for this, and what is written in your holy book about bashing male baby head against rocks, or how slave should be handled is immoral."

basically all they believe told to others => not provocatif because it is their belief. All they do not believe told to them => provocatif.


I used christianity as an example but frankly all those who feel blasphemed or insulted or provocated function on the same level.


Bunch of goddamn hypocrite, that's why they like to have "limit" or freedom of expression : because they count on THEIR speech to be the one as being recognized as unprovocative, as they are the majority. But if you limit freedom of speech to what is not provocatif... Then you ain't a shit worth freedom of speech.

what areas have humans consumed so many natural resources that they can no longer survive there

There isn't that many, but i think easter island would qualify.

If you preach that XYZ needs to be : * lose right they have now
* ened to be "eliminated", "purged", "kicked out of the countries"
Then your speech is most probably extreme.

Most Left political ideology in the US did not meet those criteria. In fact witch hunt from holywood and the FBI *did* meet that criteria.

Finally in europüe we have many hate speech law. I may be wrong, but they are speaking not of new law, which already cover the case, but rather speed up enfrocement.

We already have law on the book with respect to speech and hatred, and those being forbidden... It sounds to me it is only required to really enforce those law now in a speedy manner.

The novel was incredible for the time (that and "Friday" it was called, the one with the intersex assassin?). Spoiler below:









In the novel in the end practically all protagonist are the same persons on different point of the time line, in a very paradoxical way (e.g. , the main protagonist his himself, herself before the sex change, and her own daughter).

I thoought the title of the previous post would lead people to google it. Nonetheless here is an example among others :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Actually more than you would think. Still no justification for moslem to do the same or christian or anybody. I view both extremist as both equally sociopathic assholes.

You have that a little wrong. God *can* (in principle) be proven. If the sky breaks open, choirs of angels break forth, a 10km-long arm reaches down from the skies and an 8km golden-haired, bearded face looks down upon humanity and utters words of unshakable truth...then God is proven

No you have only proven an entity is capable of that. You have not provided evidence that that entity is a god or similar avatar. Misquoting clark : sufficientely advanced science can look like magic. How do you prove that entity you describe is a god, or in reality is not but a very advanced technologically civilisation with very advanced tech, with an unknown agenda wanting to make us believe they have/are god ? You can't.

God is essentially unknowable, as no matter what feat it does, there could be a technological ET having mastered tech being able to reproduce that. God can neither be proven nor disproven, except maybe if you meet him after death, instead of oblivion.

I mean other countries had president which believed in an apocalyptic religion (revelation) or that atheist should not given the right to vote. Being from outside, the apocalyptic believer make me far more fear than the plane-to-other-planet Veda believer.