The person who modded me "Funny" had the right idea.

I don't know why you were modded Troll because what you say is strategically correct. As Sun Tzu advised, all warfare (physical or PR) is based on deception. The use of deception against an aggressor whom you have done nothing to provoke is the only legitimate, morally correct usage of it that I recognize. Whether this case fits that description is the only debatable point.

Having said that, if you sign a contract stating that you will not disclose information, and you disclose that information, then it's not just dishonest; it's also illegal (or at least, a tort). This is unwise, especially when Microsoft can afford the best lawyers and you cannot. There are times when you have concerns other than how much you can justify without violating your morality, and this is probably one of them. For that reason, I'd strongly advise against actually doing this, making this a bad example of the otherwise sound concepts you mention.

Right. The electorate who lack the critical thinking skills and knowledge of logical fallacies to understand what's wrong with the status quo are unlikely to demand leaders who institute policies that stand up to critical thinking and are free of logical fallacies. This suits our current leaders just fine. Those leaders are not stupid. They know how to play the game of politics to their advantage. They are aware of the situation and its implications, they know what's wrong with their laws and policies, but those serve the interests who got them into power so they are unwilling to change this system. It could only come from the electorate, which, as I already said, is ill-equipped to demand this sort of change. Did you fail to derive that from my previous post?

That's the danger of giving government direct control over education and the curriculum. I have no problem with the state governments using tax money to fund education, but the parents should be able to use that tax money to send the children to any school they like. I'd like to see something like the voucher system (the money follows the child instead of the child having to follow the money) and I'd also like to see government get out of the education business entirely other than providing the voucher. The reason we don't have vouchers is because the NEA is its biggest opponent and they have a ton of political clout that they have no reservations about using. It's not because vouchers are an unsound idea or are logically flawed. Refer to my previous point for how we arrived at this situation.

I don't like it and I don't delight in pointing it out, but most people are passive sheep. If the schooling they received does not teach them logic, argumentation, and critical thinking, then they won't learn those things. They could find books, Web sites, and other resources and teach themselves, for only basic literacy is required, but they won't because it doesn't occur to them that they should. Only a tiny minority of people would ever take that sort of initiative. So the reality is, if the schools don't teach these things, then the number of people who retain this knowledge are going to be such a tiny minority that politicians can safely ignore them in any election. I hope this explains why we have the current situation and why it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

When you get out of grammar school they'll teach you about reasoning in a little more detail

No, they won't. It sure would be nice, though.

If the (government-owned, government-operated) public schools actually taught logic, argumentation, and critical thinking, thoroughly and exhaustively, it would remove a lot of individuals and interests from power. Imagine if we never had any laws or policies except those that could stand up to rigorous examination. Imagine that clearly enough and you'll see why no one who could arrange that is inclined to let it happen.

That's a great balance against the marketing and PR that Microsoft spends a great deal of money producing. All of their marketing and PR is completely biased, of course. It would be reasonable to complain about GL being biased the moment Microsoft's marketing fully discloses, with equal emphasis and prominence, all disadvantages and downsides of all of their products in addition to their advantages and benefits. Until then, such a balance that PJ is providing is a welcome and useful thing.

I heard one simple idea that probably would solve the illegal border crossing problem: landmines. Line our side of the border with antipersonnel landmines, everywhere except the legitimate entrances/checkpoints. Post highly visible signs in English and Spanish, and also with graphics in case the person is illiterate, warning that it is a minefield. The purpose of this is to establish a deterrent, not to actually hurt anyone (though if that happens, they can't say they weren't warned). Maybe those signs can include some contact information at the bottom, useful for obtaining information on how to go through the process of coming here legally.

After realizing how embarrassing the documents were to Microsoft, they put them online and later got a very large settlement from Microsoft by agreeing to take their website down.

I'm quite grateful for the Streisand Effect. If not for that, then normally someone who sells out or is (legally) bribed like this removes everyone's access to such information. Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide.

There seems to be reason to believe that the hangover is caued by acetaldehyde. Though, I have noticed that some drinks are worse than others. For example, I think red wine has very small amounts of alcohols other than ethanol, alcohols which are a bit more toxic. It's probably also why I seem to get much more subjectively drunk from red wine than an equivalent amount of most liquors. Beer has a similar effect with me, and I assume that's because of the hops. Hops alone are sedating, and in fact hops tea (non-fermented, non-alcoholic) can be used as a natural sleep aid or a way to relax.

From that Wiki article:

Most people of East Asian descent have a mutation in their alcohol dehydrogenase gene that makes this enzyme unusually effective at converting ethanol to acetaldehyde, and about half of such people also have a form of acetaldehyde dehydrogenase that is less effective at converting acetaldehyde to acetic acid.[16] This combination causes them to suffer from alcohol flush reaction, in which acetaldehyde accumulates after drinking, leading to immediate and severe hangover symptoms. These people are therefore less likely to become alcoholics.[17][18]

The drug disulfiram (Antabuse) prevents the oxidation of acetaldehyde to acetic acid, and it has the same unpleasant effect on drinkers. Antabuse is used as a deterrent for alcoholics who wish to stay sober.

Helpless people want you to be helpless too, thus they don't understand any of this.

I'd assume that this is significantly better (smaller) than existing/economical technology, else it wouldn't have become a headline. But thanks to slow news days, I've been wrong about that before.

You'd love what John Taylor Gatto has to say on this subject. He also has a shorter essay here. He highlights how many of modern public schooling's techniques are profoundly anti-educational and seem designed to encourage dependency. He also advises that it takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and mathematics skills; after that, the person is capable of educating themselves given access to books and other resources. One trivial example of the damage this does can be found in those computer users who get confounded by very simple issues that are found in Page 1 of the manual, the README file, the help file, the FAQ, and the vendor's Web site, yet they still need handholding, not because they are incapable of reading and understanding the information, but because they feel helpless.

I am very grateful that there are people like this who will stand up and say something, who will expose these important ideas. Make no mistake, that takes courage. It's little wonder that you generally don't see folks like that on the prime-time evening news, for what they have to say, however true, is also quite inconvenient to many powerful interests.

Incidentally, you may appreciate my sig; it's quite apropos.

The editors?


(they have infinite points, and per the FAQ they are not shy about using them...)

I wish a comprehensive group of security experts with varying backgrounds and specialties would get together and try to compromise both Freenet and Tor to see just how secure and anonymous they really are. By this I mean in an open, public, collaborative sort of way. This could only be a good thing, as any vulnerabilities or weaknesses could potentially be addressed. Then we could be a bit more confident about the confidentiality of those who contribute documents to sites like Wikileaks. I am sure that many such folks are doing so at great risk to themselves, especially when they live under repressive regimes, yet they believe in our right to know and are willing to take that risk. It really would be nice to know they are a bit safer doing it.

A respectable PHB chooses good people who understand their field and then listens to their advice. Such a boss would already be knowledgable about such issues if they are relevant to the business. Unfortunately, those bosses seem to be in the minority and many of their peers were simply promoted to their level of incompetence. To answer your question, we generally are not PHBs, but most of us have to deal with them. Getting the word out to them in a form that they accept as credible is far better than nothing, even if it's something the rest of us knew and could have told them all along.

During the 20s I'd have been "hahaha, another drinker's rights advocate". I don't believe that I have the right to tell consenting adults what they may or may not ingest, that what they do in the privacy of their homes is absolutely none of my business. That goes for alcohol, marijuana, or any other substance. It also goes for what religion they practice, what they want to watch, read, write, talk about, etc, you name it. If there is no victim, there is no crime. What's your point?