And retaliating by trying to convince others to stop using the software is just childish and vengeful because it does nothing to address the perceived problem. If successful, it would amount to an extralegal method of censorship because they dislike the way the CEO uses speech. I suppose this is also intended to make other people afraid to voice their own viewpoints on this issue if they happen to differ from the "correct" approved viewpoint. It's not unlike the MAFIAA's efforts to "make an example" out of filesharers in order to instill fear.

I could never in good conscience support this method no matter what its perceived goal may be.

The correct solution is to put forth one's own political viewpoints and explain why they're so much better. If one's position is so reasonable and correct then there is no need for vengefulness and fear. Really all the administrators of OKCupid are doing here is revealing that they are unreasonable fanatics who treat dissenters as hated heretics rather than people to be persuaded. They should apologize to the reasonable gay rights advocates for working to make the movement look bad.

But I assume that at least you'd be on the market because your old dishwasher broke or something reasonable like that. Although it hardly takes three weeks to look up something like a Consumer Reports rating...

Anyway, the main purpose of much advertising and branding is to convince people to expend and possibly go into debt to buy shit they don't need. Many millions of dollars are poured into this effort for the simple reason that it works. It doesn't deserve to work, but it works.

Just ask yourself why pharmaceutical companies are allowed to directly market prescription-only drugs to the general public. The whole basis of medical practice is that you first need a diagnosis and that only a licensed professional can determine this. You either have a legitimate diagnosis and need that drug or you don't. Anyone else is, in fact, thrown in jail for trying to diagnose a disease (practicing medicine without a license).

It was for this reason that I stopped short of saying "and therefore they should all get a pass and be considered totally blameless". I'm with you. It's not that hard to learn about these things. It's a problem of inertia really. Once the first step is taken, the rest unfolds naturally enough. What's the first step? Don't believe anything the government says (George Carlin was right about that), learn to do research, and stop depending on mainstream media to spoonfeed information to you.

If something appears on the mainstream media it was either bought and paid for, or various monied interests don't really have a problem with it being widely known. By the way, most any major politician would rather have a Puritannical sex scandal than expose precisely why the vote went that way.

Dammit. Something actually a bit witty and I'm all out of mod points.

At least I never wasted any of them modding up the repetitive "sharks with lasers" memes.

No. What they are is lazy, childish, obese, opiated by entertainment, naive, and self-centered. This enables the corruption by the minority who really run things.

The rest of the world only thinks Americans are evil and corrupt because of the myth that the US government and US corporations are representing the will of the American people and operating on their behalf.

Most Americans would be shocked and horrified if they learned about what their government and major corporations have done to places like South America, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, let alone what goes on at home.

Yes, just like the Pepsi Cola in the action movie is merely being used by the badass hero to quench his thirst, and certainly no claim is being made that it is superior to Coca-Cola or any niche brand of soft drink.

Yet Pepsi Cola paid a lot of money to make that happen.

Why should Apple get this treatment for free with government support? When it would be so easy to create a video with none of these questions? That's the take-away here.

Indeed. The court showing an Apple logo (or if they ever showed a Samsung label) for even a moment is a potential problem. The effect of a large, official establishment of some sort showing acceptance of such things, for even a moment, is not to be underestimated. It's the entire basis of all celebrity endorsements, for example.

"This major actor used Product X and says he likes it, therefore maybe I will like it too!" sounds silly and full of fallacies. But it works. There is no reason to assume that "this official government organization displayed one logo and not the other" has zero effect. It's so easy to avoid these problems and it would be worthwhile even if it were difficult.

This sounds so much like the product placements in movies, or the subliminal advertising experiments conducted decades ago. Whether these methods work or not, the intention is rather clear. Why do judges recuse themselves from trials in which they may have an interest? It is not because we have proof positive that the judge cannot maintain objectivity, but rather because in a fair trial we wish to eliminate such concerns entirely. The outcome and the precedent are simply too important.

Whatever you think of such methods, all of this could be neatly put to rest, at the satisfaction of both litigants, by merely creating a video using fictitious brands to illustrate the same point. Compared to the cost of carrying out this trial, it would be negligible, and that's assuming it would have to be created from scratch, that there are not already such videos available.

The problem is that we have two standards. One is the level of objectivity and reasonable thinking you should be able to expect of adult people. The second is the actual thinking you really get from adult people.

According to the first, it's truly a tempest in a teapot. According to the second, the cost of producing a video that would put to rest entirely such objections is negligable compared to the cost of the rest of the trial.

Branding, logos, and emotional situations associated with them are used in marketing for the precise reason that they bypass the former standard and appeal to the second. All major corporations engage in this. Apple is not in any way special and neither is Samsung. They do it because on the vast majority of soft-minded and easily influenced people, they work. Just consider, why would beer commercials show vibrant parties and bikini babes instead of telling you about how the beer was brewed and why it's better? Why do car commercials show families and small children to tug at your heartstrings instead of explaining why their engineering principles are sound? They want the second standard to prevail; it is much more malleable and easier to manipulate by far.

I was with you until "in the mirror". The fact is, most people in most places are not this corrupt. Most people are subject to a minority who happen to "run things".

As a matter of fact, this is part of the problem: the average person working a job and raising a family cannot comprehend the greed, the self-interested several-moves-ahead strategy that looks like things "just worked out that way", the corruption, the ruthlessness, and the dehumanization. If the average person fully understood these forces, then you would in fact have a situation where public awareness keeps these abuses in check.

Adolph Hitler himself described the phenomenon with surprising candor. He said: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."

Because they themselves do not use this level of deceit, it does not occur to them that others do. Therefore there is a certain innocence or naivete that prevents the average person from suspecting and guarding against such things.

A gaze into this mirror for most would reflect not such corruption, but a kind of innocence that ideally would know better. History is replete with examples, but of course that only happens elsewhere. It can't happen here. It certainly cannot happen in a manner that is subtle, not publicised, not obvious, not easily detectable. Or so the thinking goes.

The truth is, the corrupt are competing not with a vigilant and wise public, but against other sociopaths. Other sociopaths deal with this not by exposing all corruption, for that would harm themselves, but by carving out their own little niche that doesn't encroach upon the terriority of their competitors more than necessary. The average person has no clue how much they're being lied to on a daily basis by governments, corporations, and other institutions which enjoy an automatic credibility they have not earned.

The point being, I know they are there because I constantly track all lanes around me in addition to what is happening in front and behind me. Yes I do perform a shoulder check prior to changing lanes. I signal too, if you are curious.

What I find from this information gathering is that there are lots of pacers on the freeway who will stay in my blind spot for miles unless I deliberately speed up or slow down, which I will. I don't like having to put extra effort just to compensate for someone else's stupidity and thoughtlessness, but the safety advantage means I do it anyway.

You see, the lemming just hanging out there isn't the problem. The problem comes from them doing this in the passing lane. Inevitably an aggressive/impatient third driver(s) come along wanting to use the passing lane for, you know, passing. Now they do crazy maneuvers and make lane changes within a few inches of bumpers because that's the only way to get around the lemming. This increases the likelihood of me, in the slow lane (which is where I am unless actually in the act of passing), getting involved in an accident.

I suppose not wanting to be involved in an accident that I did nothing to cause makes me self-important? You have some serious inferiority issues if that is your determination given what was written. This is the typical hostility that used to be a rare occurrence on this site. It's like it became flooded with bullied nerds, people with daddy issues, and men with small penises or something. It can be summed up thusly: "what you said isn't what I would have said, therefore you're a fucking moron and I hate you and I already know you are wrong without really trying to understand what you said". What a bunch of sad little men.

It depends on whether it's a factual matter.

What ignorant sheep do: post sometimes vehement/passionate opinions concerning subjects they haven't even bothered to read up on, let alone understand. Then get upset when someone who is informed constructively corrects them. It's standard ego-childishness.

It's not a priority for me to be informed about, say, interior decorating. I don't know anything about it. That's why you won't see me making statements and giving opinions on it. Simple?

Consider that the Joe Sixpacks of automobiles tend to get their cars serviced at the same branded dealerships from which the car was purchased, and this becomes simple two-party collusion between the dealership owner and the car company allowing them to use the logos.

I have already clarified what I said about the Whisky Rebellion and that there was a reason why I stopped short of characterizing it. I can tell a man that two plus two equals four, or that there is not in fact a Venusian standing in the corner, but it is ultimately up to that man whether he will believe me.

Neither the mods operating in this thread nor the two other posters replying to it had any difficulty interpreting my meaning. That tells us something. It tells us that some, like you, want to play the "hostile audience" and be intentionally obtuse because they just have to make the other guy wrong. Meanwhile, other more reasonable people will read what was written with the intention of trying to understand what I am saying, and find that it really isn't difficult. It wouldn't be difficult for you either, if you had any intention of doing it.

Note I never said that whisky was an opiate. Again you are deliberately failing to comprehend what was written. I said that entertainment, sports, and excess food ("becoming obese") are currently opiating the population today, unlike back then. This manner you have of twisting around what was said, it would be much more successful in a verbal conversation. In a written conversation where what I said is right there for all to see, it is doomed to fail. Re-read the post yourself, you will see that I said the people living during the Whisky Rebellion lacked the opiates so common today.

But then, you already knew that. You have painted yourself into a corner and your chief concern is saving face. Your only sensible option now is to admit that you failed to comprehend what I read. But we both know you won't do that. It would require more honesty and security than you possess. You'd rather continue hopelessly and pointlessly bickering in an effort to wear me down. Because if you never, ever admit you were wrong, then no one will notice, right?

These childish ego games are destroying the fun of Slashdot more than any shitty Beta redesign could ever hope to do.