Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Amazon riding rough over industry? One recourse (Score 1) 110

by SuperKendall (#47789473) Attached to: Japanese Publishers Lash Out At Amazon's Policies

Which is why you are posting a response as AC so I won't notice and hurt you anymore... riiiiiiight.

Glad you realize when you have met your better - at least you've learned to retreat well. Next time make an argument that doesn't suck.

Hint: Multi-platform does not mean Amazon is competing against itself... what a tool.

I'll let you have the last response as idiots will go on without end or purpose.

Comment: Impossible to rebel when brainwashed (Score 2) 279

You have no idea how deep the conditioning goes. In Palestine children's programming is (no joke) broadcasting cartoons showing that jews should be killed and you get a nice reward in heaven for killing yourself in the pursuit of killing said jews.

The kids are also building the tunnels used to eventually kill jews.

With enough brainwashing, how are they to rebel? And if one child does break free, they will simply be executed.

You are applying your own western way of thinking to the problem where children have any value at all. In the middle east for religious fanatics they are just tools of war and treated as such.

Comment: They could start by not using civilians as shields (Score 3, Insightful) 279

If you're launching a rocket, exactly how do you "hide behind a civilian'? Seriously, how do you do that?

Not launch missiles from (or store them in) a school or hospital? No other countries military does that.

Or, not launch missiles right next to the hotel where journalists are staying? I don't recall reporters electing Hamas.

You are obviously a propaganda stooge for Hamas. How anyone could live with themselves otherwise backing a group that kills children to build tunnels and fires random rockets at peaceful populations is beyond me. What's an 11-year old going to do with all those virgins anyway?

Comment: Re:Why start now? (Score 1) 5

by smitty_one_each (#47788207) Attached to: An honest utterance
Then there is your conspiracy theory angle:

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah's rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

In a way, it would be a relief if true; the knowledge that there is at least some rationale to this spinelessness, however disgusting, would have a shred of merit.

Comment: Talking to "different" people is bad for you (Score 3, Informative) 65

by Animats (#47787707) Attached to: Study: Social Networks Have Negative Effect On Individual Welfare

This is fascinating. It's not the classic "people don't have social lives in the real world because they are on line too much" argument. The authors argue that following people who are "different" from you is bad for you. They write:

"Compared to face-to-face interactions, online networks allow users to silently observe the opinions and behaviors of an immensely wider share of their fellow citizens. The psychological literature has shown that most people tend to overestimate the extent to which their beliefs or opinions are typical of those of others. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are âoenormalâ and that others also think the same way that they do. This cognitive bias leads to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, or a 'false consensus' (Gamba, 2013)."

"The more people used Facebook at one time point, the worse they felt afterwards; the more they used Facebook over two weeks, the more their life satisfaction levels declined over time. The effects found by the authors were not moderated by the size of people's Facebook networks, their perceived supportiveness, motivation for using Facebook, gender, loneliness, self-esteem, or depression, thus suggesting the existence of a direct link between SNSs' use and subjective well-being."

This is a new result, and needs confirmation. Are homogeneous societies happier ones? Should that be replicated on line? Should efforts be made in Facebook to keep people from having "different" friends?

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...