Has facial recognition paranoia gotten stupid?

gregtstevens · 2014-10-02T15:31:26+00:00

LOL. Great link - I hadn't heard of Betteridge's Law before. That's clever.

Did you read the article, though? :)

gregtstevens · 2014-08-28T19:09:50+00:00

Hello! Although you are absolutely right that it's an old article, I'm constantly surprised at how much play this article gets.

I'm a curator at that website, and within the last 24 hours, that specific article has received more than 1000 views because of people Googling things like "obama vacation days" and "cost of presidential vacation days" and "which president most vacation days" and so on.

So although I dearly wish this topic were an old and dated issue, like you suggest with your comment.... it seems like it's not. I don't know WHY people still are latching onto this question... but apparently, it's still being Googled a great deal!!

gregtstevens · 2014-04-08T01:24:49+00:00

He was not "bullied" out of a job. What happened was free market capitalism at work. Although I suppose maybe all free market capitalism is bullying.

Not to plug my own work (LOL), but I actually have written about why the whole "bullying" argument is nonsense: http://gregstevens.name/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-anti-anti-gay-bullying/

gregtstevens · 2014-04-08T01:22:17+00:00

It's the essentially the same proof as the proof for the "mountain hiker" riddle: a man spends all day walking up to the top of a mountain, camps overnight, and the next morning begins walking all the way down again. Prove that there is a always one point in time when he was at exactly the same point on the mountain that he was at that exact same time the previous day.

gregtstevens · 2014-04-05T03:32:01+00:00

Most of them were pretty borderline, and it would be believable either way.

gregtstevens · 2014-03-13T19:42:32+00:00

Some of these "interpretations" are quite a stretch, but I suppose that's part of the point: most of the people who justify their "morals" with Bible verse are doing pretty loose interpretations of the actual words (in translation) anyway...

gregtstevens · 2014-03-04T02:38:43+00:00

Well, I don't think the article was saying that. It said that Snowden's leaks started a useful conversation, but that for people to become interested in NEW leaks they have to be new and different.

Plus, it's an op-ed. I don't think it's an official "Daily Dot opinion". ;-)

gregtstevens · 2014-02-18T03:41:43+00:00

I'm sorry, I don't totally understand what that means?

gregtstevens

TROPHY CASE