Slashdot Mirror

...the only question people have isn't actually whether or not he's telling the truth, but why people would put their faith in him in the fucking first place.

They're both human caricatures at BEST. What are John McAfee's accomplishments at this point? Being on the run from a murder charge in Belize, being hooked on bath salts and lying his face off only to admit it was for a "shitload" of publicity a few days later. On the antivirus product that bears his own last name, he himself has said that it's so useless and irritating that it's one of the first things he uninstalls.

The whole reason anyone seems to even pay attention to McAfee is that he demands it from them, he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. He doesn't have some hacker think-tank at his disposal as he implies (I'm guessing that was a desperate bid to get the attention of someone in #anonops). He doesn't have anything to add to the discussion besides his presence, which I'm sure he charges quite a reasonable rate for. He's a drugged out, damaged lunatic. You meet plenty of them on the street every day to work depending on where you live, yet I doubt that level of familiarity would leave you to trust them to decrypt an iPhone. You probably wouldn't trust them to tie their own shoes.

It's John McAfee. Okay, so maybe it was believable; but if you're honestly surprised by the follow-up, you haven't been paying attention. This is a guy who posted a video on Youtube where he talked about banging underaged girls and smoked a bunch of meth.

McAfee isn't out to defraud people; he's just out to be a loud caricature. I'm sure some day he'll say something serious in a sensational and ridiculous way; I'm equally sure he'll keep saying things that sound serious and then turn out to be just noise, because that's what he does now. He doesn't get attention because people believe him; he gets attention because he's interposed himself into a situation and drawn attention to himself, and we all recognize the act. You *can* play off that act honestly, but it's not a requirement.

I'm an American, but I tend to go to the Economist first for news.

Though recently, it has been so hilariously anti-Putin, that I have stopped trusting them.

Not to say that I'm pro-Putin, but their vicious caricatures of him are like something from WWI propaganda. I do think he's a douche-bag, but I expect journalists to give me better and more balanced news than "He's a douche-bag".

He is a solid democrat, but has recently been playing the caricature of what democrats think republicans are. He's been earning votes despite this, not because of it. The reason people like him is because he's not a career politician. When he gets elected, he'll show his rear end and declare himself a democrat again.

Everything becomes rhetoric. And when someone contends with you that actually understands that nothing you're saying has any meaning and its all about shit talking to win votes... then the whole thing collapses.

Yes, that's exactly the problem that the Republican party has, and why Trump with no political accomplishments to his name has floated to the top of their toilet. He isn't even Wendell Willkie level, but there he is, on top.

The load of shit lacks content, so it is quite buoyant.

Meanwhile their voters eat it up and ask for more. Not that that is new in politics, American or otherwise.

But they end up doing nothing. You're right, the Republicans have had a congressional majority that Gingrich would have loved. Yet what have they done? Nothing much. Heck, the most hated thing in politics was their own reform and they had to run from it since it was coopted by Obama.

So they can't even fight it for real, since if they touch it, it becomes their fault.

And yet, if it fails, what can they do? Blame it on the Communists? The terrorists? The Catholics?

They certainly haven't been able to articulate any kind of alternative.

The Republican Party is stuck in their own trap, thry don't have anywhere to go, and the tiger they're riding will turn on them when it realizes there is no prey to eat.

Oh and Archie Bunker was around in the Seventies, making the same complaints. Or Steptoe. Or even Atticus Finch, apparently.

It is an age-old pattern, that almost never gets anywhere, but stubbornly lingers on.

Meanwhile, the other side has a machine politician against an outsider who seems more like the caricature the strawmen liberal is portrayed to be than she ever will be.

She won't act like you think. She doesn't need to go that direction. All she has to do is sound saner than whoever gets the other nod (And while I am doubtful, it isn't impossible that Trump pulls a Perot and walks off, or somebody mixes it up in convention process), by letting them run off with the rope. They'll trip themselves up sooner or later.

The more so if she can find some moderate Republican to be her running mate if Trump goes ballistic over some nonsense. Actually, I wonder who is suicidal enough to hitch themselves to the Trumpeters cart and be his VP. Paul Ryan isn't available since Boehner threw in the Towell and I doubt Geena Davis is available.

I guess Dan Quayle is still alive.

Counterpoints from the same caricatures you decry:

Republican: Most of the tech you enjoy came about from the Department of Defense. War demands technology, and then you get to frolic in it once we have a moment's peace again.

Democrat: I don't understand your problem, Al Gore personally created the internet so you stupid masses could wallow in porn and vote for us.

Sanders and Hillary don't even hold a candle to him. He's the best carny in the show by far. And your righteous indignation along with that wild imagination is quite an amusing spectacle. I like how you caricaturize mass media input in all your lecturing to those at your feet.

It could also be argued to be an act intended to keep the noses of the FIB, CIA, NSA, et al out of places where they don't belong i.e. the private data of every Apple iPhone/iPad/Mac using person on the planet.

I think the idea (not that I agree, I certainly don't on the full picture, but let's at least be fair!) is that an independent judge decides in a court of law whether or not the FBI belongs in a particular phone or not, and that it makes that decision on the basis of the individualized facts around that phone. And that the decision of the court authorizes only the search of that specific phone.

The first step in an honest argument is arguing against the best possible version of your opponent's position, not against a caricature.

The modern christian church does a lot of good in society.

Lots of good they do: they promote the spread of AIDS by discouraging people from using condoms, prevent people who love each other from marrying because they are homosexual, are just starting not to reject divorced people, try to stiffle free speech by banning caricatures of religious symbols, reject evolution, global warming (for their evangelist branch), try to ban abortion even in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger (see Ireland among others) etc.

I haven't seen many 'society of atheists' running soup kitchens, or micro finance banks, or free surgery ships, or child sponsorship programs, or crisis counseling centers, or refugee support programs.

You really did not look far: Medecins Sans Frontière, Reporters sans Frontière, Greenpeace, Les Restaurants du Coeur, Le Refuge (helping young homosexuals rejected by their family), etc.

When Google acquires an app or program you're using, the time to start searching for an alternative is the same day. You can rest assured that sooner or later, Google will toss the features you liked overboard, keep the features you loathed, and shoe-horn the result into whatever version of Google+ they're playing with at the moment.

When Google gobbles it up, it's gone. Like a beheaded chicken, your app may continue to move about in an appalling caricature of life. Do not be deceived. Mourn and move on while you've still got lots of time to find the best possible replacement, rather than when Google suddenly announces that the loathsome thing they turned your former fave into is being shut down, because the only people left using it are a few die-hards.

I'm not sure I agree with you. If you think about it, McCarthy was an authoritarian douchenozzle as bad as any caricature of a commie that could be come up with, and he was doing what he did in the name of fighting communism.

No, I think the best way to diff the cold war versus now is with this regex: s/communist/terrorist/g . The players who are doing this shit now would have been the ones doing that shit then if they were born a generation earlier.

History repeats itself over and over. Here's an example: Think Freedom Fries are a new idea? Look up Victory Sausage.

Manga are drawings that don't even depict the likenesses of real people. They look completely cartoony and fake. That fact that you can't separate a cartoon caricature from real life shows that you have some real insecurities and mental problems.

To what do you attribute the rise of the "furry"? Me, I blame it on Bugs Bunny in drag. No, but seriously, my generation grew up watching anthropomorphized animals on TV, and came to associate with them. One of the first sources of that funny feeling in my pants was Cheetarah on Thundercats. No, I do not fuck in fursuits, nor do I own one, or wear one on TV... but even so, it would surprise me if the two phenomena weren't related. We learned to empathize with anthropomorphized animals as children.

If I draw a picture of your momma impaled on a post that goes up her ass and out her mouth while the flies buzz around her rotting pussy, would that be OK? Would that be a just a drawing? Would there be nothing wrong with that? How about I draw that up and hang it in a big downtown gallery in New York?

Yep, that is exactly what it would be, a drawing. Draw what you want, doesn't affect me or anyone I know in the slightest.

Your fucking manga shit is not art it is fucking surrogate kiddie porn

Manga are drawings that don't even depict the likenesses of real people. They look completely cartoony and fake. That fact that you can't separate a cartoon caricature from real life shows that you have some real insecurities and mental problems.

How about the full schematics for a nuclear weapon. We can just mail that to ISIS right? They're just drawings right?

Sure. Information should be free for all. Even with that information, I seriously doubt that ISIS possesses the means to use it for anything. In fact, they probably already have schematics. But according to you, maybe we should just ban all teachings of physics and anything smaller than the naked eye can see, because it could totally be used for evil....

You are going to fucking pay for your perversion you sick little fuck. You will be beaten to a pulp and shit on like the fucking cesspool of humanity that you represent.

Nope, nothing will happen to me, e-tough boy.

Better start shredding your kiddie porn files now, You have drawn way too much attention to yourself.

Project much? Also, do you still beat your wife?

I think we should tell your family about this, to make sure they keep the children away from you.

I used to read comics and watch cartoons with my family and friends when I was a kid. It's a pretty normal thing to do.

Again, grow the fuck up. Also consider getting psychiatric help, because you sound like you need it for your fixation on child porn and inability to tell cartoons from real life.

Yeah, it seems pretty obvious to me as an American from a different State that this just means some judge doesn't like the telescope.

DId I read that right? You literally said that you don't know anything about the local politics and that makes you confident that the judge vacated his previous ruling allowing construction because he "doesn't like the telescope?" So he hated the telescope last year when he made the original ruling too? How does that work?

Are you trying to do a caricature of viciously ignorant self-righteous slashdotters who have an autistic level understanding of social issues? Because you are done a fucking awesome job of it!

I too can paint in broad strokes, but I break nearly every one of your pro-life caricatures:
- I favor a single payer health system
- I favor funding smaller class sizes
- I am proud that my state was one of the first to abolish the death penalty

Hmm... *cocks head to the side* You're smarter than you look. Don't you love it when people tell you how you think and believe based on a caricature?

Dunno how long you've been a Libertarian (just noticed a post a while back) but it's kind of amusing how perspectives and the narrative change. I've not actually changed my beliefs but, by virtue of my party affiliation, I've somehow gone from being on the loony left to being on the authoritarian right. The funny thing is, I'm pretty damned left.

At any rate... You'll probably just have to repeat yourself three days from now when people will again (sometimes the same people) make the same accusations, based on the same caricature. However, I suspect you already know that. Also, your first post was very correct. They (we) will be arguing for years. I like to say that we'd have had weed legalized years ago but someone forgot where they put the petition.

People who hear about Iraq from the US news mispronounce it. Those who actually deal with the country pronounce it "Urak".

People who denigrate a whole group of people because of a caricature of what they think that group is like are called Bigots. You sir are a bigot.

Observation: Right or wrong, people often seem to consider themselves intelligent when they're not. They are not interested in rational or intelligent discussion or consideration. They are often incapable of doing so because of their own biases, it simply creates an environment where they'll use so many logical fallacies that they will hold their views, regardless of facts in evidence, and will insist that others who do not hold that view (regardless of facts in evidence) are unintelligent.

Opinions you are entitled to but you're not entitled to your own facts. These biases, they don't do us any good and help ensure that we're unlikely to get a good solution. More often than not, the answer is somewhere between the two and moderation is a good a place as any to start - it's probably the best place to start. This trend of Team Sport Politics with Talking Points, a scoring system, professional players, pundits, and announcers - really has to go IF we actually want to have meaningful discussions. They've even got team colors.

Both sides assume caricatures of each other and then assume anything that fits those caricatures is representative of the whole.

For the record, by most measurements, I'm considered a Socialist. I'd suggest that I do have a lot in common with a Socialist but that I prefer that mechanism as a pragmatic approach and reached my conclusions based on reason and logic and not on emotions or some need to ensure conformity. I also am not extreme in my views (I don't think) and prefer a blend of systems, as opposed to a single ideology, and think that we need to discuss where the lines need to be drawn, redraw them, and check for benefits or negatives until we achieve the greatest blend of freedom, liberty, protection of the commons, equal opportunity (not to be mistaken for equal outcome), and greatest reasonable level for upward mobility as a whole - while ensuring optimal environments for the individual.

What is my political party? I'm actually a Libertarian. You might call me a Socialist Libertarian but I prefer just Libertarian or Classic Libertarian. The capitalization is because I'm a nominal party member and have been for many, many years. In Europe, the closest would be that of a Social Democrat (I think). In result, as in by method, I'm further to the left of any national-level elected official that I know of. My reasons for holding those views are because they're the most logical views to hold that I am aware of. (I actually love a good debate about them - being forced to defend my views is a great way for me to learn and refine my views - I'm open to change.) I hold those views, that the method is best in some areas - while less than ideal in others, because I also hold the view that it takes wealth to fully capitalize on your freedoms to make greatest use of your liberties.

I realize that phrasing may be confusing to some. I like to describe it like this: You have the freedom to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If I threaten your life, you have the right to do so. (I've also a working analogy to rights, society, and a soup pot - I'm still working on it, I have been for many, many years, and I've refined it fairly well. I think it best to be able to ensure we're using the same definitions and that folks have a clear understanding of my verbiage.)

Ah well... I, err... I don't really get to opine much in this thread - but I can agree, fully, with your post. For better or worse, I agree and it is unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people revert to complete and total morons where politics is concerned. This is not, by the way, limited to just the US. I've been fortunate enough to travel the globe. People are people, no matter where you go. Oh, they may have their quirks and idiosyncratic behaviors (and stereotypes exist for a reason) but they're just people at the roots. This appears to be universal... I've also been allowed into almost every country that I've tried to visit (sometimes during some times of extreme troubles) so I've managed to get quite

He has a caricature of what he thinks a pickup truck owner is. It may be prejudice, but it isn't bad because he is enlightened and intelligent. You know not like the kinds of people who buy pickup trucks...

I believe it was mentioned in the Economist that US localities issue something like $6 billion in moving violations every year.
With driverless cars, this drops to nearly zero.

Granted:
a) with a fully-implemented driverless system, logically then you probably need fewer officers because you're not policing the roads so much. Less ground to cover; and
b) we all despise the blink-and-you-miss-it towns squatting alongside the interstate, with their 70mph-to-35mph speed limits for 2 blocks, with one lazy-ass cop writing speeding tickets all day long to more or less fund the entire city budget.

But that latter caricature glosses over an important point: that cop sitting there is, in fact, on duty and available for emergency roles. They're not going to (or bloody well better not) sit and write you a ticket when a store gets robbed or someone gets shot. Essentially, the traffic-ticket revenue is an opportunistic and pretty-straightfoward user tax, filling the hours and hours of "nothing happening" so that when something important does happen, that officer is available.

Without that $6bn in revenue, police budgets will be distinctly pinched, and likely cause localities to raise taxes to pay for the level of police coverage to which they've become accustomed. Essentially that, or driverless cars will come with a HOST of user-based surcharges to prevent this (effective) tax from falling back on the locality.

I doubt the new system will ultimately be cheaper than the old.