News Media: The Fourth Estate, The Printing Press, The Display Screen ... > "Info. War" ? Centralized Control Of The Messages

Yes, BUT !
That's different.
These "free" Internet services are not free.
Reports indicate Google operated $Millions in the $red, before it refined its advertising revenue model, thereby reportedly becoming the wealthiest entity on Earth.

This is not new.
"Free" TV has been supported by commercial sponsors not just for years, or decades, but human generations.
And while America's love / hate relationship with advertising persists, we seem to have arrived at a queasy stalemate.
TV commercials provide real-time viewers (those that don't use a DVR) the invaluable pee-break.

And while the glass half-empty crowd can whine bitterly, customized, individually targeted advertising can be a valuable service.
Sexual dimorphism though it may well be, I'm a guy, & I'm no fan of shopping.
It would be a deeply appreciated blessing to me if instead of me having to do many hours of tedious market research,
to be notified by the best producers of the product or service I seek / need.

We're not there yet.
More often than not I'm deluged with ads for such products, after I've done the research, and made the purchase.


The Bork case cited in post #78 is different.
A few years ago a similar controversy, about librarians disclosing the reading preferences of some individuals.
The reports I read of it indicated the librarians heroically refused.

See the difference?


I think renewable energy is a dandy idea, whether PV, or wind or hydro-turbine.

Geo-thermal, interesting.
I've got some concerns about harnessing ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, for that risks catastrophic climate consequences if ocean currents are substantially rerouted.

Geothermal is a little scary, because if we could cool the magma enough, it would no longer create the Magnesphere that provides the protection from solar radiation.
Might take millions of years, but Mars is an example of a cool core.
 
"Geothermal is a little scary, because if we could cool the magma enough, it would no longer create the Magnesphere that provides the protection from solar radiation." R5 #81
Absolutely, turning Earth's molten magma solid could cause a problem, though the bio-protective magnetosphere may have more to do with Earth's molten Iron core, than the magma mantle.
The source of that melt does not appear to be as much if at all from our sun's electromagnetic radiation, but rather more from our sun's gravitation.

Earth's axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the ecliptic, so Earth's mantle & core are under constant churn.
I'm not sure we'll chill that process substantially, charging our cell-phones.

I believe you're right, on principle.
I suspect the reason it's immaterial is the quantification, the proportion:
the amount of energy potential from the planet,
vs the amount we might actually be able to capture.

An insignificantly small fraction I suspect, EVEN if locally we might chill the local site a little.
Not enough to degrade the magnetosphere.
 
Absolutely, turning Earth's molten magma solid could cause a problem, though the bio-protective magnetosphere may have more to do with Earth's molten Iron core, than the magma mantle.
The source of that melt does not appear to be as much if at all from our sun's electromagnetic radiation, but rather more from our sun's gravitation.

Earth's axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the ecliptic, so Earth's mantle & core are under constant churn.
I'm not sure we'll chill that process substantially, charging our cell-phones.

I believe you're right, on principle.
I suspect the reason it's immaterial is the quantification, the proportion:
the amount of energy potential from the planet,
vs the amount we might actually be able to capture.

An insignificantly small fraction I suspect, EVEN if locally we might chill the local site a little.
Not enough to degrade the magnetosphere.

Good points and I really do not know the details.
It could even be that the moon's rotation might add energy and keep the core from ever decaying?

It just seems like a good idea to think long range.
For example, depending on whale oil was not a very good idea.
Then we went to fossil fuel, which may be even worse.
Nuclear may be the best, since that it the power of the stars.
But it is funny how much I liked that movie, "China Syndrome" with Jane Fonda, and now I am a little embarrassed.
 
pic of AOC, which FOX inscribed: NONSENSICAL
AOC says she supports men in women's sports because she's a "girl's girl"

This FOX headline asserts AOC "supports men in women's sports".

If I understand AOC's personality, her official position is likely to be AOC supports women in women's sports.
I'll settle for a quotation from AOC, not a "NONSENSICAL" absurdity from FOX, a source whose journalistic integrity is a distant memory.

‘Not just about trans girls in sports’: AOC says President Trump wants to ‘shred our Constitution’ using trans athletes as a ‘distraction’​

Kevin Harrish / Fri, October 23, 2026 at 5:00 AM GMT-5

United States President Donald Trump and his administration have made transgender athletes one of their favorite targets throughout this presidential term, from an executive order on girls' and women's sports to federal investigations into schools that allow trans students to compete. But according to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the real target is much bigger.

In a recent speech, the New York Democrat argued that the administration's focus on trans girls in sports is a strategic distraction, and claimed that the bigger goal is weakening Title IX, the federal law that protects women and girls from sex discrimination and sexual assault in schools. Ocasio-Cortez said that by going after trans athletes, the administration is "attacking all women's ability to stand up against their abusers."


Trump's War On Trans Athletes​

Going after trans athletes has been a priority for President Donald Trump since his first weeks back in office. In February 2025, he signed an executive order titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," which threatened federal funding for schools that allow transgender girls and women to compete on female teams.
 
pic of AOC, which FOX inscribed: NONSENSICAL
AOC says she supports men in women's sports because she's a "girl's girl"

This FOX headline asserts AOC "supports men in women's sports".

If I understand AOC's personality, her official position is likely to be AOC supports women in women's sports.
I'll settle for a quotation from AOC, not a "NONSENSICAL" absurdity from FOX, a source whose journalistic integrity is a distant memory.

‘Not just about trans girls in sports’: AOC says President Trump wants to ‘shred our Constitution’ using trans athletes as a ‘distraction’​

Kevin Harrish / Fri, October 23, 2026 at 5:00 AM GMT-5

United States President Donald Trump and his administration have made transgender athletes one of their favorite targets throughout this presidential term, from an executive order on girls' and women's sports to federal investigations into schools that allow trans students to compete. But according to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the real target is much bigger.

In a recent speech, the New York Democrat argued that the administration's focus on trans girls in sports is a strategic distraction, and claimed that the bigger goal is weakening Title IX, the federal law that protects women and girls from sex discrimination and sexual assault in schools. Ocasio-Cortez said that by going after trans athletes, the administration is "attacking all women's ability to stand up against their abusers."


Trump's War On Trans Athletes​

Going after trans athletes has been a priority for President Donald Trump since his first weeks back in office. In February 2025, he signed an executive order titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," which threatened federal funding for schools that allow transgender girls and women to compete on female teams.

I'm a little confused by the fact some trans I see are too large and seem to have an unfair advantage, while other trans seem to fit fine with the gender?
 
I'm a little confused by the fact some trans I see are too large and seem to have an unfair advantage, while other trans seem to fit fine with the gender?
Some ciswomen are too large and seem to have an unfair advantage.

Does that mean that unusually tall women shouldn't be allowed to play basketball? Or volleyball?

Or that exceptionally strong women shouldn't be allowed to compete in wrestling? Or weightlifting? Or .....
 
"I'm a little confused by the fact some trans I see are too large and seem to have an unfair advantage, while other trans seem to fit fine with the gender?" R5 #86
Perhaps my #88 can help supplement S #87:

Overlapping bell-curves.
We see this prominently in the cis-population.
The stoutest, strongest woman is more robust than the frailest man.

Some of us may have stereotypes which are adequate approximations of population subsets. BUT !
I suspect (without recent reliable data to base it on) trans are a minority.
But within such minority there's diversity mirroring the larger population.

Neither sexual identity nor sexual preference are determined by body type.
Perhaps we can blame the propagation and endurance of these stereotypes on Hollywood / central casting.
They have a story to tell in about an hour and a half, and stereotyping a character may help reduce storyline explanations,
and help promote comprehensibility.
 
Some ciswomen are too large and seem to have an unfair advantage.

Does that mean that unusually tall women shouldn't be allowed to play basketball? Or volleyball?

Or that exceptionally strong women shouldn't be allowed to compete in wrestling? Or weightlifting? Or .....

Some trans obviously have a long duration of more testosterone than is acceptable.
Height is not a factor.
Density is more of the factor.
 
Perhaps my #88 can help supplement S #87:

Overlapping bell-curves.
We see this prominently in the cis-population.
The stoutest, strongest woman is more robust than the frailest man.

Some of us may have stereotypes which are adequate approximations of population subsets. BUT !
I suspect (without recent reliable data to base it on) trans are a minority.
But within such minority there's diversity mirroring the larger population.

Neither sexual identity nor sexual preference are determined by body type.
Perhaps we can blame the propagation and endurance of these stereotypes on Hollywood / central casting.
They have a story to tell in about an hour and a half, and stereotyping a character may help reduce storyline explanations,
and help promote comprehensibility.

Sexual identity or sexual preference are not the issues.
What matters is body building steroids.
 
"Some trans obviously have a long duration of more testosterone than is acceptable." R5 #89
If you'll pardon my curmudgeonly reflection here:
- I support individual rights, but not the indulgence of the few, if it penalizes the many.

If a human born one gender decides they'd prefer life after transgender, ultra-spectacular !
As long as no innocents are harmed, I can't imagine why we should object.

The issue becomes clouded when such gender transition presents the appearance, or grounds for suspicion of unfairness among athletic competitors.

Perhaps candidates for gender reassignment that are also interested in athletic competition should do as Bruce Jenner did,
and compete first, and transition afterward.
 
Back
Top