Google Warns Users They May Become Collateral Damage in Cyber War

I felt the article relevant due to the fact that google did in fact make an announcement it was going to start warning it's user's.. And to what extent user's are affected I have no clue but its relevant and user's should be aware--whomever reports it.

If LXer is now in "crazy town"..its been there for a while..;-)

Quoting:So is Beck, If you accept his premises.

If it weren't for the TOS I think I could come up with plenty of examples where even the most conservative LXer readers would agree he went off the deep end. Let's put it another way: there are lots of people I disagree with strongly who are sane and rational, who make intelligent arguments for their views, and who have both the credentials and intellectual heft to really be worth listening to. Mr. Beck is not one of them.

I haven't been sane since I took quantumn mechanics in grad school and actually started to understand things.

Haven't used it in the real world, but it is nice to work out why the sky is blue every now and then.

@number6x: LOL. I was a physics major but never went to grad school. A company through money at me to write code and build an IT department from the ground up and I never looked back. I don't know which is to blame: physics or IT. I know a lot of people don't exactly consider me sane :)

@caitlyn, there's a difference between "insane" and "crazy."

Or Rachel Maddow, eh? Eh?

;-)

Quoting:Quoting:So is Beck, If you accept his premises.

Quoting:If it weren't for the TOS I think I could come up with plenty of examples where even the most conservative LXer readers would agree he went off the deep end. Let's put it another way: there are lots of people I disagree with strongly who are sane and rational, who make intelligent arguments for their views, and who have both the credentials and intellectual heft to really be worth listening to. Mr. Beck is not one of them.So is Beck, If you accept his premises.

If it weren't for the TOS I think I could come up with plenty of examples where even the most conservative LXer readers would agree he went off the deep end. Let's put it another way: there are lots of people I disagree with strongly who are sane and rational, who make intelligent arguments for their views, and who have both the credentials and intellectual heft to really be worth listening to. Mr. Beck is not one of them.

Very nicely done, Caitlyn.

> If it weren't for the TOS I think I could come up with plenty of examples where even the most conservative LXer readers would agree he went off the deep end.

Well, you don't accept his premises. So of course you would think so.

It's entirely possible though. LXer attracts a more literate audience than most political blogs. But since I'm not a conservative, I couldn't say for sure.

> ...there are lots of people I disagree with strongly who are sane and rational, who make intelligent arguments for their views, and who have both the credentials and intellectual heft to really be worth listening

Suffice it to say I doubt we would agree as to who those were. Our views on both credentials and intellectual heft are probably far too divergent.

> Mr. Beck is not one of them.

I never thought he was. As you said, different sides of the same coin.

Like religion, whether or not a pundit seems "worth listening to" has far more to do with whether you agree with them or not, than it does on anything they're actually saying.

Except for entertainment purposes, I try to avoid pundits.

@Bob_Robertson

You are, I'm afraid, in large measure pretty much right. However, their is the odd pundit (or politician or religious figure) who proves by demonstration that this is not inherent quality.

Then we get to see the spectacle of an audience who in large measure is incapable or unwilling to hear anything the disagree with, quite regardless regardless of the speaker or the merit of their presentation.

When I'm feeling down, I am certain that this phenomenon has been getting significantly worse in recent times. When I'm really, deeply depressed, I suspect that it's actually not gotten that much worse.

When a TV/radio personality is easily provably wrong time after time after time... he may be worth listening to as cheap entertainment. But not worth believing.

I had the opportunity and pleasure to work for Glenn back in 2002 and 2003 as his sound board guy during his Rally for America tour. I personally don't get involved in anyone's politics unless it physically threatens me. Of course, after watching him on Fox, I can see where many would think him a loon...and maybe he is, but in the 8 cities I traveled during the tour, he treated me like family and was most gracious....as well as the rest of his family who accompanied him.

It's a shame we don't have the opportunity to know the person before we get to know the pundit or politician.

Ken, if your day job was getting rich telling crazy whoppers and whipping gullible dunces into angry frenzies, I wouldn't care how cool you were off the job. I would flip you off and throw dog doo at you, I would.

OTOH I don't think much of gullible dunces....

I'll be supplying tuxchick with the dog doo. There's plenty of it here to go around.

@TC, why would you throw Windows PC's? Give them to Ken so he can rehabilitate them with Linux!

Good point, gus3 :). They should be liberated, not catapulted!

Quoting:Like religion, whether or not a pundit seems "worth listening to" has far more to do with whether you agree with them or not, than it does on anything they're actually saying.

@Bob_Robertson: I don't agree with this. There are any number of commentators, columnists, analysts and what have you that I generally do not agree with but whom I can still respect. They are still worth listening to at the very least to understand where the opposition (from my perspective) is coming from.

Quoting:Ken, if your day job was getting rich telling crazy whoppers and whipping gullible dunces into angry frenzies, I wouldn't care how cool you were off the job.

@tc: That sounds like a fair description of Mr. Beck. My means of responding to him would not be as... um... physical as yours. I certainly wouldn't work for the man.

Caitlyn,

Being that my "opposition" is both "left" and "right", Olberman and Beck as it were, maybe that is the source of your and my disagreement on the pundit issue.

There's simply no way I can avoid hearing from the opposition, as they are there which ever way I turn. One reason I don't own a tv.

Those I do not consider worthless pundits, such as Glen Greenwald, Alex Jones, Ian Freeman, Noam Chomsky, Lew Rockwell, to name a few, are worth listening to for what I can learn from them, regardless of my opinion about every one of their opinions.

What's funny, and I hope you can overcome your own dislike of me to see the humor, is how the worthless pundits will excoriate someone with one particular letter after their name for one act or another, but will completely ignore the same act by someone with another letter after their name. For me, it's hypocrisy like that which define "pundit" rather than "reporter", "commentator", or other label.

I certainly wouldn't work for the man."

If you are two house payments behind with no other opportunities available within a tight time frame, I doubt anyone would dismiss the opportunity offhand. Besides, he had not exposed his basement full of crazy back then...he was just a neo-con radio talk show host. His money was as good as anyone else's and almost obscene in amount. Besides, can you think of a better job than working in an outside venue in Toledo during February? And, it was a cause I firmly believe in.

I don't remember being that cold anytime else as a civilian....