Slashdot Mirror


Alan Moore on V For Vendetta and the Rise of Anonymous

First time accepted submitter tmcb writes in with a piece by Alan Moore about the influence his comic has had on the hacker group Anonymous. "On Saturday protests are planned across the world against Acta — the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The treaty has become the focus of activists associated with the Anonymous hacking network because of concerns that it could undermine internet privacy and aid censorship. First published in 1982, the comic series V for Vendetta charted a masked vigilante's attempt to bring down a fascist British government and its complicit media. Many of the demonstrators are expected to wear masks based on the book's central character. Ahead of the protests, the BBC asked V for Vendetta's writer, Alan Moore, for his thoughts on how his creation had become an inspiration and identity to Anonymous."

286 comments

  1. Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd be lying if I didn't admit that whatever usefulness they afford modern radicalism is very satisfying.

    Wow, that's the first time I think I've ever heard Alan Moore expressing anything remotely akin to...dare I say..."happiness."

    This article *must* be a hoax.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the V for Vendetta guy had the decency to die for what he believes in.

    When will we see Anonymous punks start offing themselves? I suggest they do self immolation. Doesn't hurt anyone else really and the spectacle is great!

    1. Re:At Least... by doconnor · · Score: 0

      Several of them have gone to jail. No doubt they knew about that risk. They haven't blown up any buildings yet, either.

    2. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't some of Anonymous been murdered by the mexican maffia?

    3. Re:At Least... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You say that though
      I was re-watching the film recently and it was the scene at the end where the mob marches on the armed police and the police use their own judgement and decide not to fire. Maybe I've been spending too much time on /. but I can't believe that in the current climate in that situation in the real world the police wouldn't fire and then chase them down.
      After seeing what happened at the recent protests with police attacking protesters with disproportionate force, the kettling, the staying away from areas where riots were actually taking place I can't believe that with today's police force would do what happened to V's supporters. I honestly found the resolution to be unbelievable because they have shown they're willing to attack huge crowds of protesters for political gain.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    4. Re:At Least... by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the only way to get a grouping of people that doesn't have members that have been murdered by the Mexican Mafia, is to make the group "People who haven't been murdered by the Mexican Mafia."

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The also rolled back from targeting the Mexican cartel the moment it was clear their lives would be in danger...

    6. Re:At Least... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My guess is that today's police forces are slightly more independent then the one in the movie. Their commanders are unlikely to be executed or disappeared if they do something that the political leadership does not approve of.

      In the movie, the country was extremely centralized, and both of the 'leaders' were dead at the time the barricades were breached. The army could easily have stopped them, and probably wouldn't have felt bad about it. What they didn't dare do was act without orders.

    7. Re:At Least... by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest they do self immolation.

      Hilariously, your comment was modded as Flamebait.

    8. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I offer you a quote that might shed some light on the difference between Hollywood's version of good guys, and the real thing.

      "If soldiers thought, they wouldn't be soldiers."

      The line between police and military is becoming grey in the US. They want them to be interchangeable. Once the general public has accepted the fact that your liberties are provided to you by the government, and not your Creator we will be doomed.

      Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator.

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    9. Re:At Least... by Pope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My parents were my creators. That at least is provable.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    10. Re:At Least... by unity100 · · Score: 1

      there is a certain level of public participation and opinion at which police/military side with protesters. this has been the case in all previous occurrences in different countries. in usa, its not yet there.

    11. Re:At Least... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1
      At least in the movie, they were never actually ordered to fire. Here's the dialogue as the protesters approach the soldiers:

      Enemy is approaching fast. Requesting orders. General, what should we do?

      There's no response from Command, or from party leader Creedy, or from the High Chancellor.

      Bloody hell, stand down! Stand down!

      Perhaps if V hadn't taken out Creedy and the Chancellor things would have been different. Certainly the movie takes quite a few liberties with reality, but this one is somewhat believable. Without those people to order horrible things, we were left with average people firing or not. The decency of most average people was a theme in the film (Evey; the gay guy; the people who attacked the guy who killed the little girl; the lesbian; the inspector), so it's not terribly surprising that the general didn't order them to. If the general had in fact given the order, they probably would have fired, though, based on the rest of the movie.

      This makes me want to read the graphic novel. I wonder if it's significantly different from the movie.

    12. Re:At Least... by Oyjord · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator."

      *sigh* /facepalm

      Was the United States of Dumbfuckistan founded by Yahweh, Zeus, the FSM, Amaterasu, Marduk, or Odin?

      Deism != Christian God

    13. Re:At Least... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your country (assuming you're American) was founded by people who were either atheists or had very non-standard (for the time, and even by today's standard) religious views. Certainly not "Religious people" of the kind you imply.

      Believing your rights and liberties are granted to you by your government is obviously a bad idea - it puts the government in charge. Believing your rights and liberties are granted to you by a creator not only doesn't make much sense (you don't have rights in the jungle), it's ALSO a bad idea - it puts the creator, or rather whoever you believe speaks for him, in charge. Religion was harnessed to be an effective means of controlling the people long before governments came along to try the same thing. And to head off the obvious protestant objection, you most likely still regard some form of holy book as speaking for your creator, and if you're Christian, the details of that holy book are nasty if interpreted literally and/or completely.

      You live in a democracy. Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you). When people realize this, democracy will actually work properly and the world will be a better place.

    14. Re:At Least... by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      I offer you a quote that might shed some light on the difference between Hollywood's version of good guys, and the real thing.
        "If soldiers thought, they wouldn't be soldiers."

      Whoever you're quoting, they, and you, have clearly never spent quality time with any soldiers.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    15. Re:At Least... by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Our countries' police force IS for the most part centralised already. Most police policies across the country are determined in London.

    16. Re:At Least... by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Actually the US wasn't founded by religious people. Don't believe the current rewriting of US history.

    17. Re:At Least... by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you).

      Ha, that is most certainly not true. If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.

      You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human. And then there are certain rights that society can grant later. Basic health care would be a good example: it isn't a basic human right, but it can be granted as a right by a society that passes a certain stage of wealth and medical technology.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    18. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget that, they're missing a part of the movie.

      First of all, as a police officer under an extremist regime, fascist or communist or whatever, they're the first ones to see what the secret police does to innocent civilians (every regime has one of those in one form or another). It's pretty much like this, they sometimes pick up a guy at random, give him a thorough beating for some made up reason, then they send him back, back and blue perhaps crippled for life. He or she doesn't have to be a bad guy, in fact more innocent is better, because if that guy is a jerk, you'd say "he had it coming", so what, but if it's someone who they had no reason to touch, then what about you? That's how terror works for them.
      When you're a police officer with a gun, facing a mob of faceless/masked individuals and the commander behind you screams that if you don't fire, your whole familiy will suffer at the hands of the secret police(and trust me, you'll be there BECAUSE you have a family you care for), which will you choose?

      Don't look into fiction for the answer, look into history. Don't bother with China, they're still going strong, and the current leaders will constantly try to bury their actions as soon as possible, try the fall of the communist regime in Eastern Europe and see how it was done, a lot of those files were opened up, still, even now they don't get much viewing because the current powers still try to keep them burried, even the innocuous stuff.
      Captcha: bastards :)

    19. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the movies.... and that scene doesn't really translate well to the modern world.

      In the real world, before all those police are sent out to barricade a mob from marching down the street, they're given instructions on what to do. And more importantly, they're given instructions on what measures to not exceed. I.e., use force you deem necessary but by god, don't shoot an unarmed protestor. At least, not in the back.

      The reality is, in an equivalent situation, the mob would get tear gassed, stomped, and beaten to a pulp, as we've seen in almost every mass demonstration throughout the world over the past year.

      The hand of organized authority and it's measure of enforcement is very apparent. To even consider that scene to be translateable to the real world is disturbingly naive.

    20. Re:At Least... by icebraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not parent, but:

      Ha, that is most certainly not true.

      Why, because you don't want it to be?

      If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.

      Right and wrong is subjective. Slavery was wrong to some, right to others. Since I find slavery to be wrong, I'm glad most society agrees with me, but the fact is that there's no reason to consider one of those positions to be objectively right, therefore they're both valid.

      You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human.

      OK, then please prove it.

    21. Re:At Least... by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      I had a very good friend who was on the steps of the capitol at the fall of MiloÅeviÄ. She told the story of the police arriving. She said, "The boys were in front and ready to fight, and we girls in back were ready to die and bandage them up. But then, the police put their guns down and joined us. That's when we knew we won."

      So yeah, it sometimes happens and there's a happy ending.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    22. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really? Show me where the police forces of nations like the US, UK, France, etc are opening up on civilians with machine guns, tanks, etc that are not isolated incidents(and generally where the person involved is disciplined). I'm sorry, but disproportionate force is killing people. Mildly excessive force is hitting them with a baton and pepper spray. The Freedom Riders would have loved to trade police forces with those people like Occupy face today. You want brutality? Look at what they put up with.

    23. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's wonderful philosophy you've got there, the problem is, History doesn't support that assetion. In fact, history supports "Might makes right". Over and over again in the past, we have seen examples where larger societies decide that a minority or a weaker majority doesn't have certain rights and takes advantage of them. Any group can CLAIM certain rights, but, those rights have to be enforceable, otherwise, they are just effectively wishful thinking.

    24. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...slavery ... is perfectly justified (if what you say is true).

      Uh, what he said doesn't imply that at all. You can only reach that conclusion if you think "natural born rights" are the only source of morality.

      You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human. And then there are certain rights that society can grant later.

      No, you don't have to say that; I wouldn't say that. Your first category is non-existent, and your second category fully encompasses all "rights".

      I believe that a society without a certain set of "rights" granted to everyone would be a really shitty society that I would not want to be a part of or allow. But, that doesn't mean I think there is some magic natural rule that says "it must be thus: just 'cause".

      There may be a huge portion of the American subset of our society that thinks morality and "rights" are inherently present due to a deity (from which all of your arguments seem to come), but don't say that has to be what everyone else thinks, too.

      Note: I'm not the GP.

    25. Re:At Least... by Spykk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They chose continuing to live over making a pointless gesture? Pathetic.

    26. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be argued that members of Anonymous cease to be members of Anonymous when the mexican mafia know who they are because membera of Anonymous have to be anonymous to be Anonymous, and they are not anonymous when the mexican mafia know who they are.

    27. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about these groupings:

      Nobel Prize Winners.
      Residents of Greenland.
      Members of the Japanese Royal Family.

    28. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live in a democracy. Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you).

      It's sad that any American Slashdotter modded you insightful for such a fantastically ignorant statement.

      The following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence neatly sums up the philosophical basis for the American society and its government:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      Unalienable Rights are rights that each man is born with and cannot be transfered or sold, surrendered, or alienated from the individual. They are not "granted" by society. If people were reminded of this truth, then Democracy would work (or at least have chance of working).

    29. Re:At Least... by tmarsh86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They certainly weren't atheists. The Declaration is one proof of that. Most were deists which, at the time, was a very standard religious view among the more intellectual people, including Jefferson and Franklin. And they most certainly believed in religious freedom.

    30. Re:At Least... by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 2

      While I agree that their views were quite wide-spread and scattered in relation to one another, your assertion that the founders of American government were mostly atheist or non-standard is pretty misleading, almost enough so to be called a flat-out lie. Take a quick look at the biographies of just the key figures, the "Founding Fathers" of America. Four of the usual seven recognized were self-declared Christians(those five being John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) , though there ends the shared views on religion, it seems. Jefferson can be added as a fifth, if you take the usually quoted letter to Benjamin Rush as genuine and properly preserved; "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be...", and I don't see any reason to doubt it. So five of seven Founding Fathers are Christian, then; where are the atheists you refer to?

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    31. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founders were deists(some outwardly, some otherwise), as was the standard for the time for rational thinkers

    32. Re:At Least... by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

      I'd say Amateurasu.

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    33. Re:At Least... by tmarsh86 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was. Don't believe the current rewriting of US History, just read the writings of founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin.

    34. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends; this EXACT scenario DID happen with the (first) protests in Egypt. The people were protesting, the president sent out the army, the army refused to fire on its own people and helped the protesters paint there slogans on the side of the vehicles; posed for pictures, etc.

    35. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they figured out a way to federalize civilian troops. These troops are called police. Most post departments violate both federal and state constitutions but no one does anything about it. This is, in fact, the entire reason the war on drugs exist. When you pull their purse strings, as the feds do with most police departments, they are beholden to the feds.

      It is impossible to be a good American, a good person, and a good human, and support the war on drugs.

      And that's ignoring the fact that Obama is complicit in conspiracy to commit murder of both US and Mexican nationals.

    36. Re:At Least... by RegisteredSubversive · · Score: 0

      You think like a barbarian.

    37. Re:At Least... by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's not the point, is it?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    38. Re:At Least... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Your country (assuming you're American) was founded by people who were either atheists or had very non-standard (for the time, and even by today's standard) religious views. Certainly not "Religious people" of the kind you imply.

      Enlightenment ideas require only the belief in a Creator, not organized religion. And very few of the founders were atheists. If we include him because of his influence, then Thomas Paine, although public opinion seemed to cause him to waffle.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:At Least... by tqk · · Score: 1

      Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by [Religious] people ...

      Not true. Not even close. Cf. "Separation of Church and State."

      [Eternal vigilance is the only way to keep idiots from re-writing history.]

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    40. Re:At Least... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      ...the V for Vendetta guy had the decency to die for what he believes in.

      When will we see Anonymous punks start offing themselves? I suggest they do self immolation. Doesn't hurt anyone else really and the spectacle is great!

      Depends.. As long as they are outside and away from others and other flammable things. If they set themselves on fire in their, say apartment, they could catch the apartment on fire.

    41. Re:At Least... by houghi · · Score: 1

      but I can't believe that in the current climate in that situation in the real world the police wouldn't fire and then chase them down.

      Current time? Was there ever a time that they did not do that?
      Ask the Vietnam protesters if the police was all love and peace.

      The reason that you think it didn't happen is because there were no real big demonstrations.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    42. Re:At Least... by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about we make a deal: I don't make up shit interpretations of your religion ("An important tenet for Christans is that cannibalism can be a good thing. This is especially important to Catholics, who interpret their important Holy Communion ritual as literal cannibalism, brough about by magic.") that completely miss the point and you don't make up shit interpretation of the psychology of faith and atheism that completely miss the point?

      I don't have the skills to reasonably interpret your emotions around the internals of your religion, and you don't have the skills to reasonably interpret the emotions or reason of people that aren't religious, so if we both stay off saying things about it, I think the world would be a better place.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    43. Re:At Least... by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator.

      "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
        - James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

      "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
        - John Adams

      "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
        - Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

      You get the point. They may have been men of FAITH, but certainly not RELIGIOUS. There's a significant difference.

      Furthermore, why must liberties be GRANTED? They're quite plainly something that cannot be given; they can only be taken away. The question is not who grants us our rights, but rather who would try to take them away. To which the answer is almost always government. You are correct that others believing rights are granted by government is a very dangerous thing. But believing rights are granted by some deity is equally dangerous. If people believe that our rights come directly from the Christian God, for example, then denying those rights to people who people who get abortions or are athiest or are homosexual seems justified. Believing that rights are granted to you by some entity only makes those rights easier for others to violate.

    44. Re:At Least... by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1, Troll

      Franklin was a Deist, and suggesting that Jefferson was a Christian in any meaningful sense is hilarious.

    45. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are conflating two unrelated things: How a person is granted their rights (god, gov't, society), and whether those rights are morally good. When this country started, we decided that slaves were not going to be granted many rights....after a while we re-evaluated that and decided that stance was not morally good. So, we changed it. (messily, but still) Slavery is, in fact, a beautiful example of how rights are granted by society. We *chose* to make a moral decision to change the rights we granted a group of people.Those rights were not granted before that decision.

    46. Re:At Least... by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      Believing your rights and liberties are granted to you by a creator not only doesn't make much sense (you don't have rights in the jungle), it's ALSO a bad idea

      But that's the whole idea of "inalienable rights." They're things you can do alone in the jungle. You have the right to life, but that's different than obligating someone else to support you. You have the right to liberty, ie, not to do what you don't want. You have the right to pursue happiness - to do what you want. However you came into the world, whether by sentient Creator or stochastic chance, you alone in the jungle can exercise your own sentience.

      Once you come out of the jungle, your actions interact with other people's rights, and the whole social system is supposed to prevent your liberty from interfering with my pursuit of happiness (and vice versa). You in the jungle are perfectly at liberty not to build shelter and not to gather food. You in society are obligated not to stink up the place with your rotting corpse.

    47. Re:At Least... by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Insightful? There's nothing insightful about being an anarchist...even less so on /.

      Might be insightful if you had pointed out that civil rights (granted to you by state via common law) and human rights ("God" given for just being a human) are actually useful ideas, but you went in the opposite direction. I can only recon this direction to anarchy, which is cognitively dissonant with your final conclusion:

          >Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you)

      I have news for you, you are governed. It's worked out pretty well at times, and not so well at other times. You are governed by society at large- what is sad is that society is now defined by whomever spends the loudest.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    48. Re:At Least... by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1

      It is, and it is a much better story.

    49. Re:At Least... by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 2

      Your country (assuming you're American) was founded by people who were either atheists or had very non-standard (for the time, and even by today's standard) religious views. Certainly not "Religious people" of the kind you imply.

      Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

      A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin. A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists. Source: Here

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    50. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This actually happened when the berlin wall fell. Gov't said the borders were open immediately, but the gate keepers were told midnight and weren't privy to the press conference. These were they days where they would shoot people trying to cross. When mobs appeared at the gates and the guards had no idea what was going on, they hesitated, but eventually opened the gates. The leadership praised them for breaking orders and basically said "oh thank god they didnt try to shoot anyone and let them through"

    51. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      You live in a democracy.

      The USA is a Republic, a nation of laws. Societies views of what is acceptable and what is not is what form these laws.
      Are we a democracy in the sense we are allowed to go vote? Yes. Does your vote matter when the Supreme Court decides the outcome of elections? Is your vote an educated one with the now involvement of SUPER PAC's?

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    52. Re:At Least... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      We are born with an innate sense of fairness and justice. Young children, e.g., can readily make judgements about what is right and wrong long before they've been indoctrinated with religion or ethical training. So can my dog, for that matter.

      Judging that slavery was "right" wasn't as arbitrary or as easily done as you assume. Society didn't decide that "certain people don't deserve certain rights" so much as it refused to recognize slaves as "people". They were considered property, more akin to draft animals than humans, and thus the moral standards we apply to human relationships didn't apply. Dehumanization is the key. You see much the same thing with the "illegal immigrant" issue in the U.S. today. In order to justify the level of brutality that many conservatives believe is warranted, it is necessary to demonize them all as dangerous criminals, when the truth is that most are hard-working people who are contributing far more to society more than they are able to claim in return. So innocent children are not to be educated, the sick are not to be treated, and labor is not to be fairly compensated. And Jesus is entirely OK with this, because they are all (even the children) "criminals".

      The relationship between religion and morality/ethics is by no means straightforward. While it may be true that some people are constrained in their behavior by their understanding of their God's demands and threats of punishment, it's also true that God can be used just as easily to *override* our innate sense of morality and justice. We are allowed to deny basic humane treatment to heathens who don't worship as we do, just as we're allowed to deny it to slaves and others who we've dehumanized.

    53. Re:At Least... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Appealing to some fundamental part of the fabric of the universe that treats humans differently from other matter is more than a little arrogant. Quite frankly, the universe doesn't give a damn what humans do.

      But, one doesn't need to make such an appeal anyway. I want slavery to be wrong because I myself don't want to be a slave, and I can empathize with an imagined slave enough that I don't want them to be a slave either. I am willing to accept the conceit, "humans have the right to be free," if it means there will be fewer slaves. Fundamentally there is no such right. The term "right" is too vague to carry much meaning anyway. It is, however, a useful rhetorical device. One must be careful not to take it too literally.

      If you were to justify making someone a slave by saying things are not absolutely "right" or "wrong", I would listen patiently and ignore you. My reasons are unaffected--I can still empathize with slaves. If you forcibly made someone a slave, I would not be bothered by putting you in jail for it. My lack of a sense of intrinsic rights is irrelevant; I still want society to be a certain way even if I can't justify that with appeals to universal truth. I'm quite content with appeals to human-scale truth. I also understand that different people would apply essentially the same algorithm I use differently for subtle reasons. This also does not perturb me: getting at the truth of a matter difficult and error-prone, and we usually can't behave perfectly anyway. That's not a reason not to try your best, though.

    54. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      I guess the 6 years i just got done serving as Active Duty Army doesn't count? Really that quote has just helped me personally, I don't mean it applies to all soldiers. Here is a better one for you:

      Boredom, Soldiers, Sailors, and War:

      "I suppose every man is shocked when he hears how frequently soldiers are wishing for war. The wish is not always sincere; the greater part are content with sleep and lace, and counterfeit an ardour which they do not feel; but those who desire it most are neither prompted by malevolence nor patriotism; they neither pant for laurels, nor delight in blood; but long to be delivered from the tyranny of idleness, and restored to the dignity of active beings."

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    55. Re:At Least... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator.

      Standard response from those wanting to take away civil liberties and put their particular view of god on the throne.

      Washington quote "The United States of America is not a Christian nation". Jefferson- most certainly an atheist. Most of the others- Deists, or unitarian (and no- that doesn't mean what it means now).

      What is most certain is that if ANY of the creators were Christian in the modern sense of the word- they were not baptists- or belong to any of those other freedom-hating churches.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    56. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, that is most certainly not true.

      Because it's not, and nobody of any credibility believes so. You're simply poorly educated on the subject.

    57. Re:At Least... by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      Much better. I can get behind that one. -OIF vet

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    58. Re:At Least... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Rather than mod troll (your last sentence is obviously trying to goad arguments), I will bite.

      First - You're right about police and the military. They have their roles and we need to ask very serious questions when their roles get muddies. Unfortunately the military has resources that the police can't field and will occasionally be necessary for domestic deployment (ie: for support during a major disaster). Also keep in mind that the military's missions abroad are becoming increasingly humanitarian.

      Second, spend more time with soldiers. A soldier who doesn't think is going to get himself and others killed. This isn't the Napoleonic times where the ideal soldier was a mindless automoton who would march shoulder to shoulder across an open field while his companions get mowed down by cannon fire.

      Third, I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time studying history - or at least studying history from multiple points of view. Yes, this nation was settled by deeply religious people. There were many groups and they all had differing beliefs (and many didn't get along). That's why the *founding* of this nation was deliberately secular. The founders may have had their beliefs, but they knew that the only way to make it work with so many different religious was keep religion out of the government. Modern American religions are working hard to reinterpret history to try to make America their God-given land. That was and never will be the intention. The intention is that this chunk here is the Catholics god-given land. That chunk over there is the Quakers god given land. That chunk? Oh that's some crazy cult, but we like their silverware so we don't bug them either.

      America was not founded as a Christian nation and you know what? Historically it has worked well for most people that live here. Stop trying to ruin it.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    59. Re:At Least... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Read a history book, would ya'? And try to put yourself into the time period instead of trying to bring everything into your own frame of reference. Sheesh!

      The "Separation of Church and State." applied to the FEDERAL government, because each state had an official church and they didn't want to start the union off with a civil war to decide which church the country would be. It was a political decision that basically boiled down to "let's not fight about this one, guys."

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    60. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, no one has really been at all willing to stand up against the cartel. They have the money to reach out and touch anyone that might piss them off and history of having absolutely no qualms with using violence to solve their problems. That none of them died seems to suggest they've handled things better than anyone else who tangled with the cartels.

    61. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      Props given where props are due, but the division that is currently happen within the US needs to be addressed.

      Someone mentioned separation of church and state. That has NOTHING to do with how faithful/religious the leaders are, that simply has to do with PROTECTING your liberty to practice whatever you wish. Just because a person is Christian DOES not mean they are part of this neo-conservative movement currently happening. When people jump strait to that thought, and put out the possibility of it happening it creates fear in those who wish to practice something else, or nothing at all. The idea you fear someone who you think is stupid is kinda laughable, and kinda makes you stupid. Education on violence is the last thing people want, which is sad. It should be the first thing taught at a certain age/maturity level.

      Lesson 1: If we have anarchy (i.e. no government) paying for healthcare will no longer be a concern. Paying for protection will be your #1 expense. Unless you can protect yourself, then your #1 concern will be finding those (to offer services, or force your will...depends on your morality) who can't. The mass majority of people can't protect themselves even with the right tools. What good is a hammer if your not a carpenter? Can you use it? Sure. Can you use it and end up with the same results a carpenter would? (i.e building a house) Not a chance.

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    62. Re:At Least... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...why?

      When you're conducting a battle / war / merger / acquisition / etc., you don't want the guys on your side to be captured / killed, you want the opposing side's constituents to be captured / killed. No General / Admiral will say that they need more of their own men to die, because they aren't putting on the airs of self-sacrifice / martyrdom. They might ask for someone to take on a risky or suicidal mission (within the context of war, which is already risky to being with), but on the whole, the idea is to do more damage to the other side than your own (of this I am fairly certain).

      Now, from what I've gathered, Anonymous is not doing anything that constitutes a battle / war (except in the 'War on Drugs / War on Terrorism' fashion, which sadly, the US appears to be losing (economically speaking); a little less a giant tsunami, a little more some waves in a teacup). And the majority of the things they've played with qualify themselves as Script Kiddies (they download pre-made programs, like LOIC, or pre-made scripts, join an IRC channel, and pretend they're 31337 h@x0r$). In the technology world, that ranks about the real-world level of a high-school prank (throwing a cherry-bomb in the girl's toilets, playing with the PA system, etc.). You deal with that by calling their school / university, and having them held back a year.

         

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    63. Re:At Least... by yurtinus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a God given right (and a society given right). Slavery had been perfectly justified for the vast majority of Human existence. Thankfully society decided to make it wrong.

      Let's get down to the brass tacks. If somebody has more power than you, what rights do you truly possess? They can force you to work, force you to starve, force you to die. At some point in our history though, we decided that wasn't acceptable. We collectively decided it's wrong to deny certain rights and we use the might of our society to attempt to protect those rights.

      You can't out of context say "a person has these inalienable rights" because it isn't always true. You can say "In the US, a person has these inalienable rights" because we as a society have decided to protect them. Replace US with Darfur or North Korea and you see it isn't true - because society doesn't have the strength to protect those rights.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    64. Re:At Least... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Did slave holders really think slavery was right, or was it just not wrong because slaves were "sub-human"? A stable society will require morality based on equal rights, but the society as a whole isn't necessarily bound by morality in its treatment of others.

    65. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So no person/government can take away someone's right to liberty?

      There are no prisons in your society?

    66. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I keep your growing and growing sense of "safety" from stopping my pursuit of happiness?

      Everything I want to do is "unsafe" to your small brain with no skill. How can I drive 80mph without idiots telling me not to?

      I don't want to live near people who think everything is unsafe. Their lack of IQ and skill shouldn't negate my natural ability.

    67. Re:At Least... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      You have the right to life, but that's different than obligating someone else to support you.

      So you claim to have the right to life, but prove it. You might claim that you need air to breathe and live. But it just so happens that I already have a factory that is polluting my air. It's not my fault that my air later becomes your air. By claiming a right to live, you are obligating me to support that right by cleaning up my factory.*

      I think it's much easier to justify the right to life if you simultaneously obligate everyone else to support that right, to a certain degree. The collective compact increases mutual success.

      * I don't specify what the pollution is. I can think of several examples of "pollution" that would render the air deadly to you but that you'd never be able to sue me for.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    68. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      Second, spend more time with soldiers.

      I've just got done doing 6 years active duty Army. I'm not saying soldiers downrange are not thinking! They are some of the best and brightest. That doesn't mean that they (and I) are incapable of buying into all the lies hook line and sinker.
      I want to defend yours, and my children's liberties more than anything in the world, but could no longer partake after what I saw first hand going on. Seeing the federal waste first hand has deeply effected me, much like the violence a Vietnam soldier would have saw deeply effected him. (Think military-industrial complex)
      My main point is that the people who volunteer have a much deeper sense of what freedom is VS. what some dickhead /.'er who is just highly educated on the idea/history/basis of freedom. America should be listening to us, not the pundit morons. Will they? No, but they have those stupid Yellow Ribbons on the back of their foreign car, so they don't need to support us any further. Want proof or an example? Someone will only see the bold statement at the end here, and dismiss it as stupidty because he is SO educated on SO many other things.

      RON PAUL 2012

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    69. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) We do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a Republic, which is simply a degenerate form of Oligarchy, where the Oligarchs choose representatives, and then the people choose from amongst those, approved, representatives. To call this a democracy is a stretch.

      B) Rights come from being a living being that can converse. Governments or societies may recognize and even defend those rights at times, but, they are not granted by anyone or anything, just respected or disrespected.

      C) Neither I, not any living person today, ratified our constitution. We live in anarchy with a very strong and central gang who insists that we don't, and their laws are in force. Most people are convinced of this position, or at least too scared to admit otherwise.

    70. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get where you're coming from, but we spent the last decade having republicans scream "with us or against us" and declaring that people who said anything they didn't interpret as a pledge of 110% support of Bush's imperialism were committing treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy (because of course the cave dwelling terrorists spent their days reading American newspapers).

      And then the democrats took over and kept everything going. We still have people held without charge in Guantanamo, mainly on the word of poppy growers who were paid to turn in "terrorists". We only just now withdrew our soldiers. Perhaps some of it was inevitable (we broke it, we bought it).

    71. Re:At Least... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      An appeal to authority and an insult in such a small post. Bravo!

    72. Re:At Least... by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      I like this change of tone. Just leave the religion out of it because it's not what we're about. You can believe that your liberties are granted by a creator and while I'd be happy to discuss, I certainly can't disprove that. Fundamentally we agree on liberties, there is no sense drawing battle lines over where they come from when there are those who want to take them away.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    73. Re:At Least... by thomst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      poormanjoe blathered:

      Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator.

      Advocates of a Christian theocracy in America constantly repeat that meme, despite the fact that it's patently untrue.

      Christian cultists immigrated to America on the Mayflower specifically so that they could practic religious intolerance free from interference by the English government. Other cults followed their lead over the ensuing century-and-a-half or so, but they were not the only sort of people who immigrated to America. Most of those who came here in the 150+ years before this country was actually founded did so for economic reasons - because land was free for the taking, and opportunities to get rich abounded in the New Woirld.

      The founders of the USA - which is to say the delegates to the Continental Congress and its successor bodies - were, admittedly, mostly at least nominally Christian. But the country that they created was, by design, emphatically a secular entity. That, in turn, was because for many decades before (and, indeed, after) the founding of the USA various of those Christian cults mentioned above were in a practically continuous state of war with one another. Take the so-called Great Awakening in Connecticut during the period 1735-1745, a time of tremendous turmoil in the Congregationalist (i.e. - "Puritan) faith. The Massachusetts Bay Puritans even went so far as to hang four Quakers for the crime of not being Puritans. So the founding fathers explicitly made the USA a secular nation, to prevent any of the cults from gaining supremacy over the others and establishing itself as a national religion.

      Basically, you and your ilk want to undo that and make the USA into a Christian theocracy. The problem is, you fail to understand that, if the USA became an officially Christian theocracy, chances are that it would be a Catholic one - because adherents of the Catholic Church comprise the single largest denomination in the USA, with more than 65.5 million members (although there are more Protestant adherents collectively, they are fractured into hundreds of denominations with serious doctrinal and dogmatic divisions from one another, and cannot be considered as a single religious entity), with Southern Baptists at just over 16 million members being the next-largest denomination.

      If you believe that Southern Baptists would be happy at the prospect of an explicitly Catholic theocracy in the USA, you aren't very well acquainted with Southern Baptists, or their ingrained hatred of and contempt for what they like to call Papists.

      So, in conclusion, kindly shut the fuck up, because you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    74. Re:At Least... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      The Declaration of Independence set up a philosophical basis for what the Founders hoped would be a workable Utopia. An AC above however, was right: "Any group can CLAIM certain rights, but, those rights have to be enforceable, otherwise, they are just effectively wishful thinking."

      Don't get me wrong. I agree, in principle, with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. However, I have no illusions that, unless I am willing to stand up for those rights, they aren't worth the paper they are written on. That is the reason the Founders saw fit to include the 2nd Amendment (yes, I know that the courts have interpreted that to mean the various states' National Guards; IMHO, that interpretation is willfully ignorant of the situation in which that Amendment was written). Ultimately, your rights derive from the fact that you are willing to fight for them. If enough people are no longer willing to fight for their rights, then they effectively don't exist.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    75. Re:At Least... by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Nobel Prize Winners.

      All dead, and replaced by Mexican mafia doppelgangers.

      Residents of Greenland.

      Trick question. These do not exist; Greenland is a rumor spread by the Mexican mafia. Proof? If there were residents of Greenland, some of them would have been killed by the Mexican mafia.

      Members of the Japanese Royal Family.

      Are you kidding? The Japanese Royal Family is so totally made up of Mexican mafia zombies; they were the first ones to go. Japan is the fastest way to get H to the Mongols.

    76. Re:At Least... by tibman · · Score: 1

      It goes both way though. The mob has to show up without slinging rocks or provoking the on edge riot-cops. But, i agree with you. If an unarmed mob was approaching the skirmish line (peacefully) and the commanding officer told his skirmishers to stand down.. you'd still get one idiot (IDIOT!) who would shove a protestor walking by with his baton and set off a chain reaction. Or you'd get a protestor (kid thinking "yeah man! these cops are pussies!") getting into a cop's face and spitting on his eye, setting off a chain reaction.

      I apologize for the language.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    77. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      I'm all for separation of church and state, but someone has to run the country correct? If their were ever a man who came off as honest, and moral as Ron Paul does, regardless of Mormon or atheist he would have my vote, but until someone from those sections show up I'm going to have to continue siding with my faith, and others with similar faiths. Not every last belief someone holds is political. When someone buys into that, they are just being foolish. If you can't understand why a man who delievered babies for 30 years is pro-choice then your head is in the sad. Luckily the same man understands personal liberties, and wouldn't outlaw it. Just because he personally wouldn't perform one, doesn't mean he can't understand the medical need for it.

      If it were not for their faith would the founders have been enlightened enough to write the documents in the manner in which they did? Neither of us can really say. I'm not trying to draw more battle lines either, just attempting to illustrate that if faith/religion gives us otherwise moronic human race a way of being peaceful, moral, and prosperous then it's generally a good thing. If you found a way to be peaceful, moral, and prosperous without having faith/religion that too is great. Just a bit harder to arrive at I guess?

      I'm not here to play moral police, if you're not paying taxes you're good in my book folks!!

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    78. Re:At Least... by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Not so fast.... have you talked to your dad about this yet? He's down at the milk plant now.

    79. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      Cool, I'm glad you enjoyed it! Here is link to give credit! Many more good ones here to if you're interested.
      http://www.samueljohnson.com/soldiers.html

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    80. Re:At Least... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well the difference between a historic deist and an atheist is pretty thin. And wanting religious freedom for all or simply knowing that most of your citizens are religious so laws and policies must be made to account for this is not deistic.
      Many of them were not full atheists, at least in their own opinions, but most of them were not really differentiatable from an atheist.
      And quite a few of the major ones were quite clearly religion and faith haters. Which is different then Atheism as a lot of atheist do thing that religion serves a purpose.

      "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    81. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I can remember my mother muttering "My God" one night in their bedroom when they were sleeping together!

    82. Re:At Least... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I would question how a historic deist in a country full of religious people differs from an atheist.
      Franklin probably considered himself a deist, and most of the founding fathers were not avowed Atheists.
      But most of them were faith/religion haters.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    83. Re:At Least... by tqk · · Score: 1

      Read a history book, would ya'?

      I'll bet I've read more of them than you.

      Your Founding Fathers were mostly "deists", not religious. Separation of Church and State came down from the Puritans who left England to get away from religion imposed on them by gov't edict.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    84. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ....and in breaking news, the Crown Prince of Japan, a noted poet who has been nominated for this year's Nobel Prize for literature, was gunned down today during a state visit to Greenland, by what appear to have been members of a mexican drug cartel. Local authorities declined to comment on what the fuck that was all about.

    85. Re:At Least... by dbug78 · · Score: 1

      Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you).

      Ha, that is most certainly not true. If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.

      You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human. And then there are certain rights that society can grant later. Basic health care would be a good example: it isn't a basic human right, but it can be granted as a right by a society that passes a certain stage of wealth and medical technology.

      You are both wrong because rights are not given or granted; they are taken from those who would deny them.

      Want free speech? Speak freely and with no regard for those who would silence you.

      Rights are a matter of opinion. The ones the majority agrees upon are the ones that are recognized. There are people who believe they have the right to kill and there are people who believe we don't have the right to say things that offend them. The only thing that makes both of them wrong is that they do not have the numbers to force the issue.

      If you believe you have a right that is not recognized then find ways to convince others that you are correct. Racial equality and women's rights both got where they are because people protested, made noise, made arguments and gradually convinced the majority that they were right. Gay rights isn't there yet but is following the same model.

    86. Re:At Least... by Genda · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take a God or gawd to stand in the belief that human beings have inalienable rights, that perhaps society's greatest responsibility is to promote and empower human dignity. We hold that humanity must be free of oppression, slavery, poverty and ignorance to rise to it's greatest potential, and any institution or enterprise that promotes itself to the detriment of humanity and life at large must be constrained and by design forced to address its responsibility to human life and liberty. Laws must exist to serve humanity and not despots. Police must exist to enforce these laws with dignity and compassion.

      The United States was hijacked in 1980. A few wealthy, powerful men looked at the problems that faced humanity, and rather than seeing an opportunity to address those challenges looked for a way to use these challenges to take control and solve the problems they saw in the way that despots throughout history solved such problems. Sadly, they didn't bother to study events like the French Revolution. The entire world is changing. Democratizing in the face of ancient memes and cultures which struggle to persist sociopolitical atrocities millennia old. I would argue that religion has been a hindrance to humanity for the most part. I distinguish organized religion as an institution for the promotion of magical thinking in the face of contrary evidence from the personal practice of spiritual endeavor which is often, in of itself a powerful inquiry into the nature of self and its relationship to the eternal. I have no problem with ontology, philosophy, metaphysics or any other search for a deeper human truth. I do find that pumping superstitious masses full of mindless magical crap, making them virtually unfit for rational discourse or informed appraisal of a physical universe both distressing and alarming at a time when we need enlightened minds desperately.

      In fact I am interested in the existence of a big 'G' God. However, I am far more interested in evolving myself and humanity to a state that ensures our race will have a brilliant and enduring future, and I can without equivocation say I have a great deal of work to do on myself, and that society at large is a fair distance from that goal.

    87. Re:At Least... by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      I think that your way is a good way to put it, although it all really comes down to semantics. All rights come from the people at some level, because we have to think them up and (here's the important bit) agree on them. Even if you believe god handed down human rights, there are a great many humans who don't believe in your god, so you still have to communicate and agree with them on what "human rights" boil down to.

      It's difficult to just say "Here is the list of human rights that humans get. Done!" because even the basic ones change sometimes, and there are some pretty high-level concepts now found to now be fundamental. It used to be that your only "rights" depended on your ability or your army's ability to fight, run, or sneak; what the hell was freedom of speech back then? Now, we have all these fancy lists and pursuits and whatnot, which is better than good, it's great! Still, our rights were and (super important) are determined by mutual contracts with each other (i.e. you can have the right to free speech, but all the rest of us do too), and we absolutely must work to defend existing agreements and the ability to add new cultural agreements. They really are the only things propping our current rights up, and are the only way to expand and improve human rights in the future.

      In any case, you're right. We absolutely have to agree that all humans deserve the same rights as any other humans, and that these rights are protected for all of us.

    88. Re:At Least... by Muros · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He was not trolling. He is however guilt of feeding a troll. Correlating freedom and religion is a massive troll, particularly humourous when you consider that most of religion is about is telling you what you can and can't do.

    89. Re:At Least... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      No, he thinks like an arts major.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    90. Re:At Least... by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

      "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams.

      Perpetuating this quotation in isolation is dishonest. See, for example here:

      John Adams did, in fact, write the above words. But if you see those words in context, the meaning changes entirely. Here's the rest of the quotation:

      Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!' But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company--I mean hell.

      In any event, I assume that was the poster above was getting at by "religious", was that these men were theists and their understanding of rights was that they are endowed by a Creator. That's pretty par for the course in the Enlightenment era.

    91. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they should "an hero"?

    92. Re:At Least... by nickberry · · Score: 1

      "You live in a democracy. Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you). When people realize this, democracy will actually work properly and the world will be a better place." No I don't live in a democracy, I live in a republic. As much as people might want a democracy we don't live in one, and hopefully the United States will never become a true democracy.

    93. Re:At Least... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Well the difference between a historic deist and an atheist is pretty thin.

      Not at all. As we're discussing here, deists in that time believed in a deity and that rights were granted by it. Atheists, on the other hand, reject the existence of a creator and objective ethics. Deists believed in dualism, while atheists do not favour dualism.

    94. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      The founders of the USA - which is to say the delegates to the Continental Congress and its successor bodies - were, admittedly, mostly at least nominally Christian. But the country that they created was, by design, emphatically a secular entity.

      That's all I was trying to say. Nowhere in my post did I ever communicate anything remotely non-secular. The rest of your post is just you rambling about how you imagine me, or boasting up your ego... You set forth ideas none of which have ever been processed by my brain. I don't think I even know a single Southern Baptist, but if they are filled with as much hate as you seem to be, then maybe I have? I'm glad you saw this as an opportunity for a flame war. I really don't participate in those.

      So, in conclusion, Jesus loves you.

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    95. Re:At Least... by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      Recently, a Christian testimony online went practically viral, labeled "Why I hate religion, but love Jesus". Just like his letter said, Jefferson seemed to hate religion, yes. However, he also considered himself Christian and claimed to follow God. Contradiction? Not really.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    96. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      Thank you for sharing the full quote, for a moment I thought maybe I didn't understand John Adams, but this reassured me. Thanks. Wonder if anyone will mod you up for giving the full quote. How does the OP respond to this full quote?

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    97. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yesterday there was a comment that spelled "insight" instead of "incite" several times and got modded +5, Insightful. Cracked me up.

    98. Re:At Least... by thomst · · Score: 1

      The founders of the USA - which is to say the delegates to the Continental Congress and its successor bodies - were, admittedly, mostly at least nominally Christian. But the country that they created was, by design, emphatically a secular entity.

      That's all I was trying to say. Nowhere in my post did I ever communicate anything remotely non-secular.

      Oh? So this is "non-secular"?

      understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator.

      Horseshit, sailor. That's as "non-secular" as a Papal bull.

      So, in conclusion, Jesus loves you.

      But, you see, I don't love him. And that's the point: because the USA is, by design, a non-secular entity, I don't have to love him.

      So, in conclusion, go thou and fuck thyself.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    99. Re:At Least... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well of course they believed in a deity, at that time in that place their Atheism really did not have many good arguments going for it.
      And all of your other arguments follow from them believing in a creator god.
      But someone who says "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." is more or less on the precipice of Atheist.
      Just like how Charles Darwin was a religious man but was open to the idea of evolution instead of god when he saw the evidence.
      If you believe in a god but have zero faith, such that any valid argument would sway you from faith then are you not in reality an atheist? At least in a more or less, kind-of, maybe, using some definitions sort of way.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    100. Re:At Least... by unitron · · Score: 1

      The Puritans had no interest in separation of church and state, they just wanted the state controlled by their church, and not another.

      It was the Baptists who figured out that you only guarantee your own religious freedom by guaranteeing everyone's, and it was to Baptists that Jefferson was writing what he hoped would be a letter of re-assurance about the protection of religious liberty under the new Constitution and Bill of Rights when he penned the phrase "wall of separation between Church & State".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    101. Re:At Least... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we need an Inciteful mod.

    102. Re:At Least... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      What? that is ridiculous.
      Jefferson was a serious, vocal, outspoken hater of Christianity and the God of the bible (and all others). And while he had no problem with teachings of love they neighbour and other such niceties of Christianity he was more or less a deist. He was not opposed to a god of nature, just to all gods of men.

      Some Sources:
      Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.
      -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

      I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
      -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

      The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
      -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    103. Re:At Least... by twotailakitsune · · Score: 1

      A lot of slave holders did not feel slavery was right. The sub-human part only came near the very end of slavery. (Sub-human = Need to be taking care of. Some did not believed that slaves could live without their owners). The "slaves need to be taking care of like pets" came to less the guilt that many had. Slave had got better health care then the poor White people. (part of it was also, "you own this thing, so you take care of it." Slaves cost a lot to buy). When slavery ended, many went back to the same place they always worked. They found that they did not get the same health care, had to work harder (why pay 5 people when you can pay 1 person who you can replace when they die from over working), and had to feed themselves. Many Ex-salve holders made more money from the end of slavery then from before. It was about this point that sub-human = pet, turned into sub-human = disposable trash.

    104. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they have suitable alibis... Personally, I emerged fully created from the primordial soup.

    105. Re:At Least... by jasomill · · Score: 1

      You can't out of context say "a person has these inalienable rights" because it isn't always true. You can say "In the US, a person has these inalienable rights" because we as a society have decided to protect them. Replace US with Darfur or North Korea and you see it isn't true - because society doesn't have the strength to protect those rights.

      False. In common usage, "inalienable rights" (also "unalienable rights") is a synonym for "natural rights," which are, by definition, rights that exist "by nature," even in the absence of political or legal institutions to grant or protect them.

      Classic, if obvious, example: according to the US Declaration of Independence,

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      In other words, people have the right to overthrow any government that violates their natural rights. Surely this right has never been granted or protected by law in any society, ever.

      Your confusion may arise from another "self-evident truth": opinions differ widely as to what, if any, natural rights exist. Your example of North Korea is certainly correct, if unnecessarily stark: opinions differed even among the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, whence, e.g., Jefferson's "the pursuit of happiness" in place of John Locke's "property", as the nature and extent of "property rights" was (and remains) a highly contentious issue.

      Let's get down to the brass tacks. If somebody has more power than you, what rights do you truly possess?

      With respect to "inalienable" human rights, exactly the same ones you'd have if you were the most powerful person in the world. Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that "rights" (natural or otherwise) are often academic. This is a good point, very true, and well taken. In the words of G.B. Shaw, "he who confuses political liberty with freedom and political equality with similarity has never thought for five minutes about either."

    106. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you right up to this point:

      So, in conclusion, kindly shut the fuck up, because you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

      Dude, This. Is. SLASHDOT!.
      Spewing forth half-baked ideas without having a clue is what we do around here.

    107. Re:At Least... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      "Christian cultists ... So, in conclusion, kindly shut the fuck up, because you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about."

      Please take your own advice.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    108. Re:At Least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly you have rights in the jungle! Not to life perhaps, but liberty and pursuit of happiness are pretty much the norm. In order to deprive someone of those you need an organized institution of some sort, even among hierarchical animals where the "pecking order" might deprive those at the bottom of the heap, I can't think of any examples where individuals are actively restrained from departing the group if they think they have a better chance elsewhere. Okay, maybe aphid farming by ants might be a counter-example, but then you're dealing with a highly organized social structure again.

      Personally I'd say the conversation would be a lot clearer if we distinguished between "rights" and "entitlements"

      Rights are those things you have unless they're taken away - life, liberty, speech, etc. Cast into the jungle you'd have these things as long as you could survive, and as such any limitation is inherently a transfer of power from the individual to the social institution, and as such there should be a clear and definite benefit in exchange. I'll freely give up my right to murder my fellows in exchange for them doing the same (provided that I may still defend myself against those who *don't* respect that exchange, since no one else can be reasonably expected to). There's no way I'm giving away my right to criticize Glorious Leader in exchange for social harmony.

      Entitlements are those things society has decided should be extended to all members, and as such they *are* given by the government - strong property rights, education, basic survival needs, medical care, education, whatever. These are things that you would not have in the jungle, and inherently involve taking from some to give to others (yes, even the property rights - in the jungle you have no more than you can hold on to, which puts severe limits on the self-catalyzing concentration of wealth and power).

      Often entitlements can be a good deal even for those on the paying end of the exchange. Feed the poor and you protect the rest from their acts of desperation. Cure the sick and you defend the healthy from infection. Improve peoples' health and education and they can contribute more to society. Allow individuals to accumulate wealth and they can use it as capital for new growth. In these cases there is a benefit to society at large, not just the individuals obviously on the receiving end. There is a question as to whether the benefit is in line with the costs imposed, and whether the government should be providing the benefits at all, but hopefully it's obvious that they are a fundamentally different sort of thing than natural rights.

    109. Re:At Least... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator."

      No, you think your rights are provided by your creator, you don't know it anymore than I know that they are not.

    110. Re:At Least... by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

      It is so, if you think it so...http://www.eldritchpress.org/lp/itisso.htm

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    111. Re:At Least... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      "By nature" is exactly how I come to my conclusions. In the absence of any sort of structure to protect somebody's right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you are entirely stuck with your own means to keep those rights. If somebody bigger comes along and wants to kill or enslave you and you don't have the power to stop them, how can that be an inalienable natural right? The very term "inalienable" means absolute or inviolate, and we see time and again that that is simply not the case.

      All this said, I honestly feel the greatest achievement of our modern civilizations is that together can say we are entitled to these rights by virtue of being people. This goes back to the original point arguing that society has declared basic rights and protects them. Not a Creator, not a monarch.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    112. Re:At Least... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yes, perhaps if you insist on retaining an early 20th century philosophical view of the world.

      Unfortunately for you, we're now in the 21st century, so don't be suprised if people find you to be a little backwards intellectually.

    113. Re:At Least... by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase a bit on something I once read: We're all atheists. Those that call themselves atheists just disbelieve on more religion than those that don't.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
  3. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure the BBC don't do hoaxes

  4. Based on previous reactions of Moore's: by orphiuchus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I expected any external use of his writings whatsoever to cause him to roll-over in the grave which I can only assume he sleeps in every night.

    1. Re:Based on previous reactions of Moore's: by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether that fits Moore's MO--would rolling over in the grave be something he could borrow from the Charlton Comics, but then get indignant about when other people used it?

  5. What's the message here? by GMonkeyLouie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Moore sounds like he is satisfied with his contribution to the movement, but not as satisfied or validated with the achievements of modern radicals (yet).

    I love seeing symbols and characters borrowed from history and re-used, or re-purposed. It reassures me that our actions could potentially matter to future generations.

    1. Re:What's the message here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love seeing symbols and characters borrowed from history and re-used, or re-purposed. It reassures me that our actions could potentially matter to future generations.

      It bothers me that future generations might, as this one has, move further away from finding intrinsic value in original thought. The general public's response to the strategies of the music and film industries is enough to cause concern; a cover is fine every so often, but reboots are naked assaults on history. One can make a new story without redefining the past: it's called $TITLE, not Batman: Bet You Didn't Know He Was a Ninja!

    2. Re:What's the message here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moore sounds like he is satisfied with his contribution to the movement, but not as satisfied or validated with the achievements of modern radicals (yet).

      I love seeing symbols and characters borrowed from history and re-used, or re-purposed. It reassures me that our actions could potentially matter to future generations.

      For as long as you have many children, you can be confident that you'll influence 'future generations' :-P

    3. Re:What's the message here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally I love the fact that we are Learning From The Past, if anything.
      I just wish more of society did such a thing instead of being consumer whores. We'd be at Alpha Centauri by now! (just kidding)

      The human race has so much potential as a race. But huge multinationals have sought to dumb people down, turn them in to slaves for X (fashion, etc.), and essentially pay the entirety of their paychecks towards it. Whether it is drugs or the newest clothes you will wear once and never touch again.
      Not calling for a nofun society, but damn, we don't half do some pointless crap for the majority of our lives.

      That doesn't even need to go in to the fact that the majority of the human race is poor and malnourished. Governments have failed their countries, continental collaborations are falling to their knees (such as the EU on the brink of a huge fallout, the UK is already for leaving)
      If that falls apart, trade will get a bit dodgy at best, possibly even trading borders closed between various countries (both if THIS gets passed and if it doesn't, due to the unrest it causes either way)

      I fear for the future... not a "oh noes world war 3" sort of fear, just as "oh god, everybody hates everyone, its freezing, there is crappy food about, the internet is gone and borders are closed" sort of fear.
      Isolationism might make a comeback in the near future. That is a terrible thing if it grows. It will only lead TO wars after a while...

    4. Re:What's the message here? by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, it's going to be a very Duggar future...

    5. Re:What's the message here? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how far back the story of Batman's martial arts training originated, but it was portrayed much like it was seen in the recent movie in the '90s Batman: Animated Series cartoon. And AFAIK he's always had martial arts skills and I don't think we're supposed to assume he was born with them.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:What's the message here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Batman has been a ninja since Detective Comics #33, sorry.

      Noob.

    7. Re:What's the message here? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      The general public's response to the strategies of the music and film industries is enough to cause concern; a cover is fine every so often, but reboots are naked assaults on history. One can make a new story without redefining the past: it's called $TITLE, not Batman: Bet You Didn't Know He Was a Ninja!

      First, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a reboot. It's the best way of having an artist give his own take to a story without actually ruining the other story. Since you're using Batman's example, it's easy to talk about Nolan's Batman vs. Burton's Batman, and it's easy to enjoy both of them in their own way.

      More specific, as far as comic books are concerned, reboots happen so often in comic-book land that having them in the movies is just one more way in which you can be faithful. I'm just waiting for the Superman movie world to finally get to the John Byrne era, as I'm tired of seeing pre-crisis superman. He's just far too darn powerful.

      Even more specific, "Batman: Bet You Didn't Know He Was a Ninja!" is a somewhat entertaining title, because I bet you didn't know he was a ninja :) The Batman Begins story of his training is actually the pretty consistent we have with the comic books. As long as we're talking post-crisis anyway. In general, one thing you can say about Christopher Nolan is that he definitely did his comic book research. The portrayal of the Joker was dead on with "Killing Joke" Joker, right down to telling people multiple inconsistent stories about his origins. Nolan certainly didn't decide to create whole new worlds and characters, and just call it a Batman movie...you can't accuse him of redefining the past, he's been extremely faithful to the comic books.

  6. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_tree_hoax

  7. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Suferick · · Score: 1

    Except on April 1

  8. Re:difference by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    anonymous@earth > diff3 "V for Vendetta" "free movies"
    No differences found.
    You see? They are actually the same. The file name is different, but the file data is all the same.

  9. Re:difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed, instead of opposing a fascist government its now about opposing a government controlled by big corporations.

  10. Re:difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    except that even as a non-pirate I can see that the means employed to stop these "anonymous thieving pirates" are becoming increasingly fascist and removed from the principles of enlightenment. Take special note of how "trade agreements" which "must" be agreed upon in secret are used to introduce laws in a step to side-step national parliaments, the overwhelming police brutality and tactics (like transporting people 20km away from a city center and dumping them by the roadside, in the middle of the night if they so wish to, without needing to ensure that they have any means to get home safely. In fact we have had at least one death due to this already as a man froze to death. All perfectly legal) used to make sure protesters can't be there to voice their displeasure at avenues (such as trade summits) covered by the media.

  11. Re:difference by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    yeah.. you're wrong.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  12. masked based on book? by rubycodez · · Score: 0

    people who say the mask is based on that book or V for V movie are funny, the mask is this guy (pun intended):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes

    1. Re:masked based on book? by dkf · · Score: 1

      people who say the mask is based on that book or V for V movie are funny, the mask is this guy (pun intended):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes

      Yes, but the masks used by protestors are very much based on the version drawn by Alan Moore (and which the movie intentionally used, being a cinematic version of Moore's work). Had they been directly drawn from the original source, they would have looked more different.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    2. Re:masked based on book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Moore didn't draw it. David Lloyd did.

    3. Re:masked based on book? by dkf · · Score: 1

      Moore didn't draw it. David Lloyd did.

      I stand corrected.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:masked based on book? by afabbro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but the masks used by protestors are very much based on the version drawn by Alan Moore (and which the movie intentionally used, being a cinematic version of Moore's work). Had they been directly drawn from the original source, they would have looked more different.

      ...and not subject to royalties.

      Anonymous, thanks for inflating the profits of one of the big media companies you are protesting against.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    5. Re:masked based on book? by demonbug · · Score: 1

      people who say the mask is based on that book or V for V movie are funny, the mask is this guy (pun intended):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes

      Yes, but the masks used by protestors are very much based on the version drawn by Alan Moore (and which the movie intentionally used, being a cinematic version of Moore's work). Had they been directly drawn from the original source, they would have looked more different.

      I'm aware of all this (as I'm sure most on Slashdot are); what I haven't been able to find is an image of what Guy Fawkes masks looked like before V for Vendetta. As stated in the article, when creating the look for V in the graphic novel they used an existing cardboard Guy Fawkes mask as a reference - anyone know what these "original" masks looked like (no doubt they changed significantly through the years even before David Lloyd and Alan Moore left their mark)?

    6. Re:masked based on book? by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      GIS for "antique guy fawks mask". There were two of them on the first two pages. Uglier and less elegant than the V for Vendetta version.

    7. Re:masked based on book? by slim · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of all this (as I'm sure most on Slashdot are); what I haven't been able to find is an image of what Guy Fawkes masks looked like before V for Vendetta. As stated in the article, when creating the look for V in the graphic novel they used an existing cardboard Guy Fawkes mask as a reference - anyone know what these "original" masks looked like (no doubt they changed significantly through the years even before David Lloyd and Alan Moore left their mark)?

      I don't believe there was a canonical mask before V. Google Image search "Penny for the guy" and ignore the V masks; there's little in common.

      I can't find the interview, but I recall one with David Lloyd in which he said that the big change he made was to the smile -- but the mask they based it on wasn't a widespread image before that.

    8. Re:masked based on book? by Zerth · · Score: 1
    9. Re:masked based on book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This:
      http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/6/45/11/311546/v0_master.jpg
      was the most famous one

    10. Re:masked based on book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm aware of all this (as I'm sure most on Slashdot are); what I haven't been able to find is an image of what Guy Fawkes masks looked like before V for Vendetta. As stated in the article, when creating the look for V in the graphic novel they used an existing cardboard Guy Fawkes mask as a reference - anyone know what these "original" masks looked like (no doubt they changed significantly through the years even before David Lloyd and Alan Moore left their mark)?

      I don't believe there was a canonical mask before V. Google Image search "Penny for the guy" and ignore the V masks; there's little in common.

      I can't find the interview, but I recall one with David Lloyd in which he said that the big change he made was to the smile -- but the mask they based it on wasn't a widespread image before that.

      You just haven't looked hard enough yet - these masks were an extremely common sight on fireworks night, in the UK in the middle of last century. The exact appearance did differ substantially, but that was due to the different manufacturers and the incredibly low cost (and low tech) manufacturing process - however they bear the same distinguishing features that now world-famous modern version does.

      The best single link I've found for these images is http://www.pyrosociety.org.uk/forum/topic/4998-guy-fawkes-masks/ but there's plenty out there if you get past the first page of results.

  13. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've spotted him laughing along at a couple of comedy gigs in Northampton of late. And showing a great deal of bonhomie with the acts too.

    Guess what, we're all human.

  14. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You idiot!

    Post anonymously if you are going to say stuff like that!

  15. Wow. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be honest, i never thought that i would see such thoughts and philosophies, and such awareness about the depravity of the current system in mainstream in my lifetime.

    im quite pleased in the direction the awareness is going. i think, even if i dont see the full materialization of these ideals immediately in my lifetime, i can still die a happy camper. however, at this rate things are going, i may actually see the realization of those ideas before i bite the dust.

    its exciting. i thank everyone who is participating in these awareness movements to change the world for the better.

    1. Re:Wow. by poormanjoe · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If this small article makes you feel that good, you should take a look at the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

      People will object to this because they will view it as political, but I doubt those people are Vets. I doubt those people would step in the ring with a Pro Boxer, but will argue freedom and liberty with those who take it on professionally. No man is perfect, otherwise he wouldn't be a man, but a God.

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    2. Re:Wow. by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      i can still die a happy camper

      Getting more involved in these movements should speed that part up for you.

    3. Re:Wow. by dkf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If this small article makes you feel that good, you should take a look at the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

      I can recommend that. A good laugh every time. It's even better when you realize that he's serious!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      donal.k.fellows@40manchester.ac.uk??
      Its survival of the fittest! To bad your weak ancestors decided to grovel at the Queens feet! Shouldn't you be doing the same?

      Don't comment on things relating to freedom, because it's clear you haven't the first clue.

    5. Re:Wow. by Maltheus · · Score: 0

      These masks first started being used, outside and after the movie, during certain fringe Ron Paul events. They were initially brought into the spotlight during a Paul moneybomb, on the 5th of November, 2007. Then the first Tea Party in 2007 (another Ron Paul fundraiser) and it was at the later Tea Parties that these masks continued to grow. The OWS came along, where the masks really took off. OWS was partly a reaction to the Tea Party, but ironically enough, a good quarter of the most active, early participants, were the same people I'd see at the early Tea Parties (both movements initially protesting the banker bailouts). And now we have many form OWS helping out in the campaign. Of course he's serious, because Ron Paul kick started this whole thing and has been at the center of it throughout.

    6. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wrong it should be downmodded into oblivion.

    7. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Getting more involved in these movements should speed that part up for you."

      Making stupid remarks could change your life too, you smart mouthed
      fascist fucktard.

  16. Re:That was England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry, once ACTA passes the police will own the copyright on such videos and they'll be taken down posthaste to prevent piracy.

  17. Re:That was England... by Dasher42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nah, the news would show some guy taking a dump on the flag, some smashed windows, not cover the rest of the story. The viewers would be telling the trigger-happy police "Atta boy!"

  18. Re:difference by anagama · · Score: 3, Funny

    instead of opposing a fascist government its now about opposing a government controlled by big corporations

    Was that intentional? Like in "King of the Hill" where a character says something along the lines of: I'm not sad, I just feel sense hopelessness and depressed mood. If it was intentional, very funny.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  19. Re:That was England... by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There would be some news reports about alleged police brutality with no facts, images, or video, but with a few interviews of older white middle class people saying that they are glad the police are protecting society from the dirty hobo looters.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  20. mod parent up by unity100 · · Score: 1

    im out of points.

  21. Re:difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because fascism and a government controlled by big corporations are so totally different. /sarcasm

  22. Re:Huh by anagama · · Score: 1

    And they deserved it. Now we need the V response to Obama's tenure.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  23. Re:That was England... by hellkyng · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

    or perhaps this.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots#Police_shooting_of_Mark_Duggan

    Doesn't matter where you live, people can still lose it...

  24. Re:difference by Dasher42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

    I assume that's the quote you wanted! And since we see Monsanto execs running the FDA and regulatory officials literally sleeping with BP execs, it sure seems spot on.

  25. ignorance much ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    fascism is a certain wealthy segment, which manifests as various corporate holders, holding the administration through a dictator they support. there has been no exceptions. nazis, mussolini, peron, they all had a certain corporate elite backing them into power, which continued to dictate policies through them after they got dictators placed. for example, not even at the highest peak of world war ii, when germany needed full mobilization very badly, nazi government did not take control of companies and factories, and instead kept performing 'bid-contract' method of capitalist government acquisitions for both resources and military design and manufacturing.

    fascism is basically corporatism. just, in the u.s. you are in the early stages of it. if it goes a bit further, you will see the fascist traits you know by default. actually a number of them, like ndaa, the attempts to censor are already here.

    1. Re:ignorance much ? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No. Fascism is the purging of the state from any foreign influence, vie a police force.

      Fascism is HARMFULL to corporations in a global economy.

      What we are seeing is corporation doing what they do when not properly regulated.

      The "Corporation are people" is corporatism.

      don't conflate a corporation backing a power that can make them money, with anything more then it is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  26. Re:difference by kiwimate · · Score: 1

    like transporting people 20km away from a city center and dumping them by the roadside, in the middle of the night if they so wish to, without needing to ensure that they have any means to get home safely. In fact we have had at least one death due to this already as a man froze to death.

    Link? I searched and couldn't find this story.

    And the GP is spot on. Not flamebait. It really is that simple.

  27. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like you're actually a character from V for Vendetta and not the hero. ;)

  28. Re:That was England... by UngodAus · · Score: 2

    I think in some ways the UK police are as bad as anything the US can bring. Note the OC mentions kettling. This is a very distinctly European (and especially London/British) police behaviour and terminology.

  29. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if we had a decent opposing candidate, that might have some traction, but the GOP seems hell-bent on nominating Gary "The Smiler" Callahan.

  30. How long... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Interesting

    until anyone wearing or owning one of those masks can be arrested for "suspicion of activities detrimental to state security"?

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:How long... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if the US government wasn't already monitoring the sale of these.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I paid cold hard cash for mine so the sale can't be traced back to a credit card. The day after Halloween, Party City cut the prices on all their unsold costumes, and I grabbed five or six Guy Fawkes masks for about $4 each. They were $7 each the week before Halloween. You know you can never have enough of them, especially when you have anonymous friends.

  31. Re:That was England... by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    We're so level headed we passive/aggressive police tactics like kettling ignoring those we squash when forcing them into tight spaces.

  32. Oh its deeper than a comic book by 3seas · · Score: 1

    The protests happening around the world are a sign of a transition happening.

    Population growth drives need for change. We have been through such transition before and there are stories indicating such. Like the tower of babel, where we moved from bicameral mind mode of social interaction to a conscious mode capable of the creation and use of higher level abstraction. When we made that transition the misuse of higher level abstraction was the discovery of deception and the value of its intentional use, or misuse of the tool of higher level abstraction, to cash in on teh values of others at the expense of others but benefit of the individual deceiving.

    Today the population has grown to over 7 billion and its has become obvious to the majority that the deceptions are no longer working to fool the majority. So the focus has turned to the whole and what is good for the whole as well as the individuals, but the few who have been cashing in on the many do not like this as it means they lose their position of power and control.

    Anonymous helps to not provided a target to kill... that is all and it so happens V for Vendetta only brought the idea of anonymous up.

    The Wachowskis brought the comic to the masses with the movie, as they brought something else to the masses with the Matrix trilogy. Which was the mechanics of how we must create and process Abstraction. Only the Matrix trilogy attempted to kill what cannot be killed as does V for Vendetta bring violence which is also in error of solution direction. All that is needed is exposure of the truth of what those in positions of power are doing to cheat the rest of us, and how, so they cannot continue to do so.

    http://threeseas.net/vicprint/VIC-basic.html
    http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php

    1. Re:Oh its deeper than a comic book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Matrix sucked. It's time to get over the fanboi ramblings about geek culture fodder and move on.

    2. Re:Oh its deeper than a comic book by 3seas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Matrix sucked as they lied and killed off that which cannot be killed off in reality. The Wachowskis had the opportunity to do something wonderful, instead they chose to cash in on an attempt to suppress. As V for Vendetta is wrong about the need for violence by those protesting, which will only fuel excuses of the lying elite to kill those awakening to the wrongs of the elite...

      As such you should read the links I provided, as regardless of the fictional movies, in real life you cannot avoid that which you do to create and use the tools of abstraction. And it is intentional misuse of abstraction by which cheats cheat. Understand the mechanics of the tools will help you see past the cheats.

    3. Re:Oh its deeper than a comic book by The+Askylist · · Score: 1

      The use of deception in primates of many kinds is well documented: see

      here or here.

      It's a useful adaptation for social mammals, and far from unique to humans, let alone post-Babel humans.

      The bicameral hypothesis is crap, by the way.

    4. Re:Oh its deeper than a comic book by 3seas · · Score: 1

      Primate deception in actions and basic level abstraction (sounds) but not with high level abstraction which also brought introspection and the first suicide.
      Primate deception is something humans can easily overcome, but up to now, deception via high level abstraction is clearly a world wide problem leading to the current transition. And oh how things are going to change.

      For more on the transition of human transition to higher level abstraction see: http://www.julianjaynes.org/

    5. Re:Oh its deeper than a comic book by forkfail · · Score: 1

      You only say this because you took the Blue Pill.

      --
      Check your premises.
  33. Is he by rossdee · · Score: 1

    any relation to Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 911) or Gordon Moore (Moore's Law)

    1. Re:Is he by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      any relation to Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 911) or Gordon Moore (Moore's Law)

      You think there are a lot less Moores than any other last name, more or less?

    2. Re:Is he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about Demi, Mary Tyler, Dudley, Gary, or Roger?

      It's actually an extremely common last name.

  34. Re:Huh by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 2

    I find it interesting how so many movies were labelled as "propaganda against the Bush administration" just because they had an evil politician in them...

  35. Holy Pretentious Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy Pretentious Batman!

  36. Re:Huh by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    Not Obama's tenure, the whole system of government. The US is in bad need of a third political party, everybody thinks with a binary attitude to the issues in life. A third party would do wonders for debate.

  37. Re:Huh by icebraining · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Moore agrees with you. The film was different from the graphic novel:

    I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

    Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures â" not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys â" and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives â" which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

    (Emphasis mine)

    http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/

  38. Next up by Hentes · · Score: 2

    The creator of Zero Wing explains how his game served as an inspiration to Anonymous.

  39. Re:Huh by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 1

    Thank you for posting that. The quotation better depicts the opinion I was trying to express.

  40. Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

    For every cut Warner gets, Moore gets a cut.

    Nope. He had his name taken off the film and directed that all profits he might be due from the film be given to Lloyd instead.

  41. Re:That was England... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

    All the examples I used were from things that have happened in the UK recently.
    I'd move somewhere else, but I can't think of anywhere that's any better Australia is about the only one but then you trade a government trying to control you for wildlife that's trying to kill you.
    I'll take the oppression over their wildlife anyday ;-)

    --
    "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  42. Re:difference by slim · · Score: 1

    ... except the V mask has been appropriated by the Occupy movement, which is protesting about more serious matters than IP.

  43. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's "H" for hoax :)

  44. Re:difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was his point, genius.

  45. Pretentious pointless movie by gregOfTheWeb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So.

    Although the government of today (In England) is a progressive bureaucratic creeping state of regulation and control, V for Vendetta makes the evil government a Christian Dictatorship? Yeah...that's a believable outcome.

    The Hero tortures the Heroine to get her on his side in the grand fight? And he's the good guy?

    The glorifying of Guy Fawlkes for his attempt to blow up parliment? What?

    V for Vendetta is a stupid movie.

    If you want to see a great movie about standing up to an evil state watch "The Lives of Others" A movie based in a believable world, one that really exists. Set in the ex-communist East Germany. It is a beautiful movie with sadness throughout but redemption at the end. Including bravery and doing what is right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

    --
    blah
    1. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the government of today (In England) is a progressive bureaucratic creeping state of regulation and control, V for Vendetta makes the evil government a Christian Dictatorship? Yeah...that's a believable outcome.

      It was written in the 80s, i.e. the Thatcher era.

    2. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The glorifying of Guy Fawlkes for his attempt to blow up parliment? What?

      V for Vendetta is a stupid movie.

      The author made a parable about the modern day embedded political symbolism and a social narrative. He then made that story popular amongst a demographic whom if you asked "would you like to read a parable about the politico-socio struggle facing our times?" would say "hell no".

      I say- he took his ideas and ideals- expressed them in a way that was understandable to his target demographic- and convinced a large number of peoples that his interpretation of politics and society was correct.

      I would say he's a near-genius.

      Yeah, the movie was kinda boring- I don't really think Guido is the best role-model, but hey- he made it work.

      It is like Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote what were, uncouth plays that were targeted to a low-brow audience and which many in the aristorcracy disliked.

      Today old William is considered the greatest writer of the English language by many high brow linguists.

      Why? He took ideas that withstood time and were relevant to people of all classes across the ages. Mr. Moore is no Shakespeare- but he has certainly made an achievement here- even if the movie version was kinda dull.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children of men

    4. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What ticks me off about it is the abuse of history. Fawkes (and others; Fawkes was largely the fall guy) was attempting to kill the Protestant King James I so they could install a Catholic on the throne. And an underaged Catholic at that; they would make themselves the regent, tied to the king of Spain.

      This wasn't a blow for freedom. It was a coup to replace one monarch with another, and a slightly-tolerant regime with an intolerant one.

      The original Fawkes wasn't a hero of any kind. If the book and film have any "greatness" to them, it's in the power of a compelling piece of propaganda to mislead. The anarchists who feel inspired by it were manipulated, and that should be a cautionary tale, not a role model.

    5. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alan Moore opposed the movie.

      Although, I suspect you wouldn't like the comic either. V is not a 'good' guy, he's kind of shitty.

    6. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, the point has hit you on the nose so hard that you have lost all sense of what it might be.

    7. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      "The Hero tortures the Heroine to get her on his side in the grand fight? And he's the good guy? ...
      V for Vendetta is a stupid movie."

      Mod parent up. I'm quite glad to see someone bring this up in this thread. I assumed when I saw that piece of shit that the only reason it was made, was to strap liberal dissenters against the Cheney torture policies in a chair, so that the fascists could monitor the brainwave/pulse/liedetectorstats of the subject, at the moment that train switch is pulled in the end, to see if the subject needed more 'treatment' to get in line with the fascists of the day (my only evidence that they were fascists is that they weren't impeached for any of dozens of valid worthy reasons.

      In fact, my conspiracy theory is that 90% of the torture we saw in the mainstream entertainment of the time was written for that purpose. V was a stupid piece of shit movie, just like Basic Instinct. Wipe off your third eye folks, and look under your chairs.

    8. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Did you know Guy Fawkes fought in the Spanish army during the Dutch revolution against Spanish oppression? He wasn't an anarchist, he was closer to the fascists that the guy in V for Vendetta fought.

      But it's a cool mask, so who cares about history?

    9. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by RDW · · Score: 3, Informative

      What ticks me off about it is the abuse of history. Fawkes (and others; Fawkes was largely the fall guy) was attempting to kill the Protestant King James I so they could install a Catholic on the throne. And an underaged Catholic at that; they would make themselves the regent, tied to the king of Spain.

      Moore knows the history perfectly well. The book isn't about Guy Fawkes, it's about an anarchist who uses powerful symbols associated with Fawkes in a dystopia set centuries later, which owes much more to the politics of Britain under Margaret Thatcher than it does to historical plots against James I. By the time Moore was growing up, Guy Fawkes had become an ambiguous figure in the popular imagination; still burnt in effigy, but somehow 'remembered' with a degree of respect or even affection (especially if you weren't a fan of the government of the day). FTA:

      "Jump forward 300 years, though, to the battered post-war England of the 1950s, and the saturnine insurrectionary had taken on more ambiguous connotations...When parents explained to their offspring about Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up Parliament, there always seemed to be an undertone of admiration in their voices, or at least there did in Northampton...While that era's children perhaps didn't see Fawkes as a hero, they certainly didn't see him as the villainous scapegoat he'd originally been intended as."

    10. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hero tortures the Heroine to get her on his side in the grand fight? And he's the good guy?

      No, he's another bad guy. The dictatorship is so much worse that the people in the movie and the audience start to root for him as an alternative, and people may end up excusing his actions and seeing him as a good guy. I believe that was Moore's point.

    11. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Although the government of today (In England) is a progressive bureaucratic creeping state of regulation and control, V for Vendetta makes the evil government a Christian Dictatorship? Yeah...that's a believable outcome.

      Because it's utterly impossible the U.K. gov't in the future could ever turn into that. What?

      (though the rest of your points seem salient)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:Pretentious pointless movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ->Although the government of today (In England) is a progressive bureaucratic creeping state of regulation and control, V for Vendetta makes the evil government a Christian Dictatorship? Yeah...that's a believable outcome.

      Check out current American Republican politics. Is it more believable now?

      Re: Glorifying of Guy Fawkes and V for Vendetta being a stupid movie:

      Well...NO. Guy Fawkes was glorified for being a conspirator and rebel in an era when Kings were thought to have divine rights, and obeisance to them was automatic and nearly universally accepted. That's what makes Cromwell and his civil war so astonishing, though he was entangled in religious justifications. The mere act of his (and others') defiance is the key.

      Another lesser known but brilliant movie along these lines is Richard Burton's last movie "1984".

      Did not know about The Lives of Others will look into it, thanks.

  46. Re:That was England... by tqk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here in America, the police would just mow down the crowd with machine-gun fire and call it a day.

    There in the USA, the crowd would show up armed to the teeth, and the cops would be running for their lives if they weren't fragging their superiors.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  47. Re:difference by tmarsh86 · · Score: 2

    It appears that Mussolini never actually said that. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benito_Mussolini

  48. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by trdrstv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The REAL Irony to him getting satisfaction that the V is being used in protests, is that most people would not of even known of his work if not for the movie (which he didn't want made). Sure there were plenty of comic book fans that were well aware of Alan's work, but not as many outside the medium. Not for the last 20-ish years (Same with Watchmen).

  49. how do you afford your rock and roll lifestyle? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    Oh, that's ironic. Not a very effective protest of corporate greed, paying royalties, buying something made in China. Stopping fascism is in large part done by people being aware of their participation in the system and opting out of it. Someone needs to make a free version. Maybe base it off the original. Not the movie version.

    Something nicer than some DIY versions.

    I suppose you could illegally copy the design...

    Are these originals? mask1 mask 2

    Ah, here are some more. And another kind.

    another and another.

    more

    another

    Or you could base it on a portrait of Guy himself.

  50. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

    As plot lines are usually driven by conflict as opposed to happy, fluffy bunnies, and as conflict is usually a relatively negative thing, a moderate tendency towards a more negative worldview helps in dramatic writing.

    --
    That is all.
  51. Re:difference by will_die · · Score: 1

    Egads is that spreading again, it is not from Mussolini.
    It would be more truthful to switch fascism with communism in your quote.

  52. Re:difference by operagost · · Score: 1

    The problem is seeing this as a corporate problem instead of a government problem. Remove the corruption from the government and there is no one to give favors to the corporations.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  53. wow by unity100 · · Score: 1

    bullshit. mask was an icon right after the movie was released, especially in internet underground.

    1. Re:wow by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      But it wasn't used politically (certainly not in any mass way) until Nov. 5th, 2007.

  54. Re:difference by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    except that even as a non-pirate I can see that the means employed to stop these "anonymous thieving pirates" are becoming increasingly fascist and removed from the principles of enlightenment.

    Hold on a minute here! You just said something that a pirate might say. Therefore, you're a pirate. That makes you extremely biased. And that means you're wrong!

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  55. Re:difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I fail to see your point.

    You're asking for a link - link to what? You think this was somehow newsworthy? I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic. It's not and no one cares. Anyway, I know where it happend even even in which language, and I still can't find it despite knowing which major newspaper I read about it in - and the reason why is simply depressing. Since there no one had done anything "wrong" not a single fuck was given. The police had the right to transport him away, it wasn't cold enough that there was an obvious risk for his health. It was not the polices fault that he was drunk. So it was an accident. That anyone would realise that dropping an intoxicated person without jacket by the roadside 20km from the nearest city is a dumb idea was not taken into account. In fact it was only mentioned in passing in news about a "ethnically challenged" person got pretty much the same treatment for "walking while black" at night and kicked up a fuss about it.

  56. Guy Fawkes the Catholic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how the Fawkes mask became the symbol of radicals when in fact the Gunpowder Plot was an attempt to restore a Catholic monarch to the throne.

    1. Re:Guy Fawkes the Catholic by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      That could be seen as radicalism for the time. Most of the population were non-catholic- so trying to overthrow the mainstream religion to put a Catholic on the throne was sort-a radical for the day.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  57. Re:Huh by tqk · · Score: 1

    And here I thought that the movie version of V for Vendetta was just a piece of thinly veiled propaganda against the latest Bush administration.

    So, you haven't seen the movie yet? Been living under a rock, have you?

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  58. Its OLD; really OLD by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    They can't own the mask; it predates the corporation.

    1. Re:Its OLD; really OLD by afabbro · · Score: 2

      They can't own the mask; it predates the corporation.

      No, it doesn't.

      "What few people seem to know, though, is that Time Warner, one of the largest media companies in the world and parent of Warner Brothers, owns the rights to the image and is paid a licensing fee with the sale of each mask."

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    2. Re:Its OLD; really OLD by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      without much effort:
      http://pyrotechnics.no-ip.org/files/astra%20advert%20-%201965-01%20trade%20-%203d%20for%20the%20guy%20(due%20to%20a%20rise%20in%20cost%20of%20living)%20(small).jpg

      I've seen old versions of that mask in photos dating many years before the comic.
      Not that the old ones looked exactly the same. Like Santa Claus, some corporation takes the image and makes it into 1 icon. BTW, Santa's red/white fatness being THE image of santa is from Coca-Cola, I read about the history of that back before the internet in this thing called a book.

  59. Re:They shouldn't mess with me by tqk · · Score: 1

    I have contacted the attorney general and I have posted My home for sale ...

    # crontab -e
    i
    1 8 * * * echo "take your meds!"
    wq!

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  60. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The British also need a third party. Except when given the chance of a referendum they said "Hell no we love our bi-polar system".

  61. Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid by anonymousNR · · Score: 2
    I think some UK Anonymous found a work around for that.

    The London protester said his brethren are trying to counter Warner Bros.’ control of the imagery. He claims that Anonymous UK has imported 1,000 copies from China, and the distribution goes “straight into the pockets of the Anonymous beer fund rather than the Warner Brothers. Much better.”

    source : http://www.theblaze.com/stories/heres-the-history-behind-occupy-wall-streets-creepy-guy-fawkes-mask/

    --
    -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
  62. Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid by anonymousNR · · Score: 1

    replying to my own comment wondering why the hell did it get a score of 5 ??? is this a new rule now, that all get a 5 and then modded down ??

    --
    -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
  63. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only three parties? I'd say it needs every party that exists. We also need to get rid of the electoral college (it's absolute idiocy from what I can tell).

  64. Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I can't sort out how an image that dates back to the 17th century can possibly be copyrighted by anyone.

    Fuck copyright has become an evil of absolutely astonishing proportions.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  65. Not an art fan? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It was a great film; few movies today are any good. Its not reality, it is art and it can illustrate plenty of real concepts and sometimes bring things into focus better than a documentary ever could. This is the power of art. Good art is vague enough for broader interpretation and this film is maybe a little too specific but it is generalized enough it'll continue for a long time; like how the book 1984 did; which was not "realistic" either but did a better job and will live on longer (until the book is banned by the party.) 1984 was short enough to be made into 1 movie... but it works better as a book; I'd not be against a film that changed the book if it broadened the exposure of the purpose of the book.

    It is a pity if you did not understand the movie. It was a comic book action movie, those are quite lame so it did exceptionally well considering (although it did pick a smarter comic as did The Watchmen so it would be difficult to remove all merit... not that Hollywood couldn't rob something of all its redeeming characteristics.)

    More pointless shallow movies need to have some thought injected into them to they can do more than just act like an escapist drug. Even if you do not like the film it clearly has a global impact, arguably a positive one giving like minded people a symbolism to gather around... Some thing a documentary or "realistic" film nobody has seen can not do. Sure there is more informative or even more motivating material out there but good luck on trying to get wide appeal and recruit new people to the concepts. V for Vendetta was way above the tripe like Spiderman which put in some phrases "With great power..." and that is all they've got (not to mention how bland such lines are; and I'm saddened to see adults quoting empty movie lines as if they were proverbs.)

  66. Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh? And what would he do if I pirate his mask. Sue me?

    -Anonymous

  67. England & the UK don't know how good they have by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think in some ways the UK police are as bad as anything the US can bring. Note the OC mentions kettling. This is a very distinctly European (and especially London/British) police behaviour and terminology.

    You know, having lived for years in both countries, and being a dual citizen, I can unequivocally say that the police in the UK are nowhere near as bad as the police in the US.

    Not even in the same universe, much less the same ballpark.

    Yes, UK police use kettling, yes, they shoved a newspaper man to the ground (but did not subsequently beat to within an inch of his life) whose internal injuries from the later killed him, yes, they are imperfect, and can be as myopic or provincial as anyone. Yes, the chief of police can get buy for years with flagrant corruption and keep his post long past his sell-by date by deftly playing the ethnicity card over and over again, until a victim of his own ethnicity finally outs him in court, yes to all of that.

    But that pales in comparison to the harshness of the US police that is part and parcel of daily policing here. Unarmed people here are shot dead in their own home, with alarming regularity, and the police get away with it by saying they 'thought he was armed.' There was just another instance of that in the tri-state area this past week, and dozens more in the 18 months or so I've been back in the states.

    The UK police can be criticized plenty, but until you've lived on this side of the pond, you really don't know how good you have it. Your police are positively humane and polite, sometimes to a fault, by comparison.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  68. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

    Alan Moore doesn't feel happiness. He just gets so pissed that his feeling loop back around to the other end of the emotional spectrum.

  69. Re:Huh by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Absolutely agree 100%.

    I always vote third party out of principal. Even if I don't agree with what they say. Even if I know they won't win. The US voters have got into a mindset that there are only two parties.

    My vote (and yours, anyones) for a third party is not a wasted vote- it is a vote towards establishing the legitimacy of ANY viewpoint- not just two.

    The more people vote 3rd party- the more people will see it as a legitimate stance- which hopefully one day will lead to more than two parties.

    I'm actually a huge fan of sortition- or an election/sortition hybrid- I believe that will truly give government the full-spectrum of political beliefs of the country- something that isn't represented in our two-party system.

    I also am opposed to political party being listed on the ballot- or the option to vote "straight party ticket". We are electing people- not parties. The party should not show up on the ballot- nothing in our constitution says we are electing parties or that parties should be listed on the ballot. This creates an unfair environment and an unlevel playing field.

    If you don't know what party someone belongs to- do you really know enough to be voting for them?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  70. Well... we already know the V mask by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well... we already know the V mask version of Guido Fawkes and where it came from... but what about the Lulz characters?

    Both LulzSec and that new one- whats it called something "S" Sec- the one that got FoxConn recently use a snobby looking character with a top-hat. The two logos are different- but there are obvious similarities... the black tophat for one.

    The only thing I can think of is "black hat"- although they're not really black hat hackers... Personally, I think they should be called "Red Hat" because they don't fit the white hat or grey hat definitions either. Red is the symbol for revolution and activism.

    Nonetheless- I thought the colour hat referred to Westerns- you know the cowboy in white was the good guy- the guy in black was the bad guy. No?

    Anyhow- back on subject- what is the origin of that guy- is it just a coincidence the new groups logo looks similar to Lulzsecs logo?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Well... we already know the V mask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sabu, the "founder" and main hacker of LulzSec, once it became apparent his buddies were morons as they all got raided by the feds one by one, disbanded LulzSec and founded AntiSec, which was supposed to be the remnants of LulzSec + Anonymous, which is why the logo is a combination of the two. Sabu is also the last one left from LulzSec to not get raided by the feds.

      http://thepiratebay.se/user/AntiSecurity/

      http://twitter.com/anonymouSabu

    2. Re:Well... we already know the V mask by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Well... we already know the V mask version of Guido Fawkes and where it came from... but what about the Lulz characters?

      Anyhow- back on subject- what is the origin of that guy- is it just a coincidence the new groups logo looks similar to Lulzsecs logo?

      http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/feel-like-a-sir

  71. Re:That was England... by lightknight · · Score: 1

    Indeed. And God help you if you're walking the family dog, and happen to wander into one of those places. The LEOs seems to get a hard-on whenever they see one, or so the various news reports would have us believe (they shoot the dog, any dog, as long as it's nearby; even if it's a Dachshund (that's a wiener dog)).

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  72. Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, I was actually thinking about this just yesterday on the subway. Thanks for the article!

  73. Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid by afabbro · · Score: 2

    I can't sort out how an image that dates back to the 17th century can possibly be copyrighted by anyone.

    Where did you get the idea that the V for Vendatta mask is a 17th century image?

    The mask in use is based on a copyrighted comic book image, not a generic Guy Fawkes image.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  74. Fiction. Not real. from the imagination. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    As plot lines are usually driven by conflict as opposed to happy, fluffy bunnies, and as conflict is usually a relatively negative thing, a moderate tendency towards a more negative worldview helps in dramatic writing.

    By that logic Richard Adams ears were a little longer than average and he had small fluffy tail, Harriet Beecher Stowe was a brownish hermaphrodite with a rather small willy and H.G. Wells could travel thorough time but only up to next Thursday.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  75. Re:At Least... Your quote is incorrect by samcan · · Score: 2

    No, Washington is often quoted as saying that, but it actually comes from the first Treaty of Tripoli, which goes back to the Barbary Coast pirates. American ships were being attacked by pirates, and thus, the U.S. Marines went to Libya to go take care of it. (That's why the Marine's Hymn goes, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.") What resulted was the first Treaty of Tripoli, which ended the war. It was signed in 1796 by the Tripolians, and in 1797 by the U.S. Congress. In the English version, which was the version signed by the Americans, Article 11 of which stated that the United States of America is not a Christian nation:

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, [Muslims]—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    Interestingly, this was not in the Arabic version, which was the version the Tripolians would have been looking at. Even more strangely, there was no Article 11 in the Arabic translation at all. So then why was it put in the English version?

    Even more interestingly, when the second Treaty of Tripoli was signed several years later in 1815 (the pirate problem persisted), neither translations stated anything about the U.S. being or not being a Christian nation. The closest is Article 15:

    As the Government of the United States of America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation, and as the said States have never entered into any voluntary war, or act of hostility, except in defence of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the Contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of Harmony between the two nations; and the Consuls and agents of both nations, shall have liberty to Celebrate the rights of their respective religions in their own houses.

    For more information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli.

  76. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then you're obviously on the wrong site: this is news for nerds, i.e., people who can figure out how to use a URI even if it's not hyperlinked. News for hapless, brain-dead idiots is thataway. (Or even thataway.)

    Now go away and let the grownups talk. :p ;)

  77. Re:At Least... Your quote is incorrect by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    OK- not verbatim; but it shows Washington himself expressing that the nation was not founded as a Christian nation- so why 200 years later people are trying to attest that it was is baffling.

    Regardless of how it was translated (most likely a translator who didn't agree with that one statement, or an oversight)- that was what was written and endorsed. It may not have been in the second treaty of tripoli - but that doesn't matter. O'Bam didn't reannounce the freedom of slaves at his state of the union address- doesn't change what happened in the past. They are still free.

    Washington said the country is not Christian- that statement isn't taken out of context. Congress endorsed what he wrote.

    I don't see any controversy there.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  78. I like the masks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They let me easily identify the politically-naive morons so I can write of their opinions immediately.

  79. wow by unity100 · · Score: 1

    congrats dude. you just confirmed my proposition. there are a lot of people who are ignorant about what political terms are, but keep on using them.

  80. Re:That was England... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Anyone, of any nationality, can be pretty easily and quickly indoctrinated into doing any sort of mass murder.
    They have proved this scientifically already, if the historical evidence is not enough.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  81. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by kj_kabaje · · Score: 2

    I find it ironic in much the same way Michael Moore talks about benefiting from capitalism because it is amoral and doesn't if you are protesting it or fighting against it so long as you can make a buck.

  82. Its all about the people man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many ways you can argue that slavery is detrimental to society before needing to broach the issue of morality, that is different though to what it seems the parent is saying but yes as you say if and when society decides that you no longer have your rights, you do indeed cease to have them, when your government locks you up for no reason and refuses you a trial, the magical ACLU fairy is not likely to turn up in prison with files baked into a cake especially if they are sharing your cell block. Unless society actually cares about it [and to a degree for it to warrant action] you will sit there and rot until the government decides your taking up too much floor space.

    There is nothing natural that innately gives you the right to anything, rights that humans are said to possess simply by being humans are constructs of our current society, these are the rules that we choose to play by, over time they change as better [subjectivly in the societies eyes] methods of collaborativly working together come to be needed due to a variety of factors [population/education/economy especially] which is why we have gone from small tribes to countries to a hybrib of countries and mulitnational corporations. To adapt to these changes we [or more our predecessors] have created these rules in an effort to all get along therefore what could be said to intrinsically give someone the right to anything is the society in which one lives, rights to free speech and similar could equally be understood to be the promise of your neighbour to protect your speech in the understanding you will protect theirs, and in that sense its clearer to see how a society can come to no longer grant certain rights to citizens and equally decide why certain other rights should be now granted. The most obvious example is prohibition, though also the response to communisum/organised crime/drugs/terrorism/illegal immigrants/technology where popular public opinion at the time about certain issues has influenced the things that society has said that you can and can not do or believe.

    Yes this is in a way awful, but frankly there seem to be no better options, even if you decide to permanently lock in certain things, when society wants to change them it will, and the harder you lock them in the more cataclysmic that change will be, equally without the ability to change a representative democracy cannot function as the power to change the system is one of the key factors in maintaining the stability.

  83. Re:England & the UK don't know how good they h by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I previously worked for a company that interfaced with police agencies all over the country (we were there database software provider). I can tell you that there's really not as much bad shit going on as you think. Yeah, there's some, but most cops just want to punch in and punch out safely, just like you. I can't compare to the UK.

    There are so many police officers in this country that of COURSE you're gonna get some racists, nutjobs, or power-trippers, just like any other large enough group of people. Getting up in arms over police abuses isn't the right fight, as those cops are degenerate assholes anyway and would be committing crimes if they were cops or not (the position of authority does make many crimes more egregious though). The right fight is going after the stupid laws and lawmakers that allow these behaviors to continue without removing these officers.

  84. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intredasting.

  85. Re:That was England... by Muros · · Score: 1

    The thing that I remember most about the news about the riots in England last year, was the army of citizend who turned up with shovels, rakes, and implements of destruction, to clean up the mess that the chavs had made.

  86. Re:England & the UK don't know how good they h by Muros · · Score: 1

    My only experience with UK police are the ones in NI. I have to say I've always found them to be very helpful, much moreso than the Gardaí further down south here. Although, given that every time I see them they're wearing kevlar and look happy that I'm politely asking for directions or something like that, I may not fall into the norm for people they deal with on their job.

  87. The V mask origin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has nothing to do with a graphic novel, movie, or any established ideology

  88. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by CRCulver · · Score: 1

    I am pretty sure the BBC don't do hoaxes

    A poster before me has cited one, and here is another one.

  89. Re:At Least... Your quote is incorrect by samcan · · Score: 1

    No, because Washington (nor anybody else in the capital), wrote the treaty. Washington wasn't even president at the time; John Adams was.

    Remember, this is 1796. They're still using sailing ships. An emissary from the capital, by the last name of Barlow, was sent to negotiate the treaty. According to the Wikipedia article, which I sent you, he did a really crappy job of translating between Arabic and English.

    By the time the U.S. Congress saw the treaty, in 1797, it had already been signed twice, first in late 1796 in Tripoli and then in early 1797 in Algiers. It got to the U.S. Congress in mid-1797. The U.S. Senate passed it unanimously, true, but I'm not sure if it would have made much difference if they had not wanted to ratify it. Barlow had already signed the treaty, "as agent plenipotentiary" for the United States, according to the treaty. According to the definition, he had full powers to sign a treaty. And, if they hadn't passed it, but wanted to renegotiate, it might have pushed the final signing off until 1798 or 1799, Atlantic travel being what it was.

    And, the Wikipedia article notes:

    Neither Congress nor President Adams would have been able to cancel the terms of the Treaty by the time they first saw it, and there is no record of discussion or debate of the Treaty of Tripoli at the time that it was ratified.

    So no, Washington never said, wrote, or signed it. Barlow's the one who wrote it, and the U.S. Congress (and President John Adams) are the ones who signed it.

  90. Re:At Least... Your quote is incorrect by samcan · · Score: 1

    Aack. My first sentence should have been, "No, because neither Washington (nor anybody else in capital), wrote the treaty."

  91. Re:At Least... Your quote is incorrect by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    LOL... OK- I stand corrected then. It wasn't Washington.

    Decided to read your link! ;)

    From the same article it claims that many Americans officials signed it before it ever made it across to the US- that Adams (who has many anti-Christian comments attributed to his name BTW- I did a google- he seemed quite bitter towards Christians actually) quoted:

    Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof.

    Also- the Senate signed it unanimously and there were no protests. So it sounds like no-one at the time had any problem with it.

    I'm disappointed it wasn't Washington to be honest- because he was more private about his religion- Adam was quite vocal in his views about Christianity.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  92. Re:Huh by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    We have a third party and a forth, and a fifth. Even if they are not powerful they have mindshare.

  93. Re:Huh by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    A third party at least.

  94. Re:Huh by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    I always vote for the third option as well regardless. Nice to read another person's motives.

  95. Re:Not an politics fan? by gregOfTheWeb · · Score: 1

    It was not a great film.

    It was a pandering film that placed a strawman of a government to fight against and a proposed solution that was ridiculous. It was a poorly conceived sci fi flick with childish notions of how to solve problems.

    I can agree that there is a whole bunch of tripe out there but to call this anything but tripe is ridiculous. Our governments, at least in the UK and the US, are not in danger of taking our liberties away in one fell swoop via some crypto-christian-fascist coup but by progressive liberal slow bureaucratic regulation creep (it's for the children/planet/polarbears). The slide isn't fast, it's slow. You are a frog in a slowly waming pot of water...

    --
    blah
  96. Re:That was England... by twotailakitsune · · Score: 1
    If the crowd did not have guns, would the cops not have them? No. Until cops show that they know how NOT to use a gun, they need to know that there is a price for beating unarmed people to death. The cops need to hold them selves to a higher slandered. Shooting someone != paper work. Cop A does something and feels guilty. Copy B covers for cop A. Cop B is a real bad cop. But now Cop B has Cop A covering for him all the time.

    Like the helicopter shooting civilians, journalists thing. They should have just come out with it when it happened. From what they said it sounds like a few things are needed: 1) The video that the pilot sees in not as good as the cam sees. So, they should work on giving the pilot a better view. If they cover it up, they would have to hide the lack of a good pilot view. 2) Training. The pilots do not get the training and information needed to deal with the type of warfare. So improve the training. But if they hide what happening, they will not know how to improve training.

    Things happen in stopping crime. Mistakes are made. Every mistake should not make a head roll. Cops should not fear people finding out. They should feel safe that If they made a mistake that as long as they are open about it and try to find ways to learn from them, that they will not be fired.

  97. Re:Not an politics fan? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    You are off target; the smokescreen designed to keep you hating the wrong enemy and vilifying them society becomes ineffective at self governance.

    The corporations are the problem; the 1 world government will not take the form of a government institution with some dictator antichrist. It'll be a cabal of powerful corporations pulling the strings of most the world's captive governments which placate the masses OR serve to distract people such as yourself. A system not an antichrist; systems are more powerful and more difficult to stop or recognize... For example, you can jail Madoff but other crooks just take his place and the still system promotes them; the masses are placated with scapegoats. Government systems are troublesome as well, which is why the separation of powers was attempted but does not apply to external organizations which can concentrate greater power and that is where todays problems are coming from (that and people having too many kids.)

    It is rather odd you take the line that you do; given how regulations went down to the point where the economy tanked and haven't been restored to prevent anything further. How the Chinese kick our ass with their lack of even reasonable regulation and are not so great at enforcing what little they do have (they just execute 1-2 execs after a big scandal and go back to the norm.) We are a race to the bottom and unless you want to go below China they will win in the "free market" that is, until your robotics can be cheaper than exploited human labor (at which point what do most the world's people do for a living? when the lowest of the low can't beat machines?)

    Religious beliefs are a powerful control method; Christianity is an old one but economic religions based upon extreme marxism or capitalism can be used too. Gods are not necessary for something to be a religion. Extremist believers in a "just world fallacy" count too.

  98. Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Check out some of the better made masks from the images in this thread http://www.pyrosociety.org.uk/forum/topic/4998-guy-fawkes-masks/

    The distinguishing features are more than similar enough for even the most stubborn person to see them.

    Of course you could also have read the article where Moore himself states that the masks are based on an existing item that was fading out of popularity:

    it was the strip's artist, David Lloyd, who had initially suggested using the Guy Fawkes mask as an emblem for our one-man-against-a-fascist-state lead character.

    When this notion was enthusiastically received, he decided to buy one of the commonplace cardboard Guy Fawkes masks that were always readily available from mid-autumn, just to use as convenient reference.

    To our great surprise, it turned out that this was the year (perhaps understandably after such an incendiary summer) when the Guy Fawkes mask was to be phased out in favour of green plastic Frankenstein monsters geared to the incoming celebration of an American Halloween.

  99. Fall of the Berlin Wall by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    You say that though I was re-watching the film recently and it was the scene at the end where the mob marches on the armed police and the police use their own judgement and decide not to fire. Maybe I've been spending too much time on /. but I can't believe that in the current climate in that situation in the real world the police wouldn't fire and then chase them down.

    Well, I offer the fall of the Berlin Wall. Due to a press release flub, the guy on TV said that the borders checkpoints would be open immediatly while the actual plan was for later, and thus no guards had been told anything about opening the checkpoints. When mobs of East Germans massed at the checkpoints demanding to be let through, the soldiers called in and never received a reply or orders. Finally, when things looked like it would have to turn violent, a pair of guards said "fuck it" and opened the gates, thus ending the Berlin Wall. It's just one anecdote, but it's pretty close to the one we're talking about.

  100. How original is 'V'? by crepe-boy · · Score: 1

    Every time I look at him he reminds me of the creepy Burger King king mascot. Hmm.. I see that Burger King actually retired him at about the same time Occupy started. Coincidence? I don't think so.

  101. Re:Not an politics fan? by gregOfTheWeb · · Score: 1

    Regulation was one of the founding pillars of this financial crisis. The regulation to mandate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to maintain more than 50% of their loans as subprime loans (to help american families get a home yay!) created the supply that helped fuel the entire industry.

    Regulation is stranguling this country and giving rise to rampant crony capitalism. You need look no further than Obamacare and the thousands of waivers from its provisions. We now live in a country where law is not law but waivers are granted to supplicant businesses.

    To place corporations at the head of the problem is to try and chop off the wrong head. It is the symptom not the cause. Reduce government and reduce the need for favoritism.

    You can control who is in office. You can't control who is in the board of corporations. Vote for candidates that advocate for smaller government, it is really the only path out of this mess. All else is only greasing the skids.

    --
    blah
  102. Re:That was England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows it is impossible to take a dump on a flag. The combination of colors will render you constipated.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI0hvm10AHo

  103. V for validation by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    "After seeing what happened at the recent protests with police attacking protesters with disproportionate force, the kettling .. I honestly found the resolution to be unbelievable because they have shown they're willing to attack huge crowds of protesters for political gain"

    That was the police showing restraint and the police have no political agenda, it's their policical masters in the peoples parliament who would like to keep a good distance between them and the voters.

    --
    AccountKiller
  104. Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore by Velska1 · · Score: 1

    Does it make you feel any better that a large percentage of those masks in Europe are "pirated"? ;)

    --
    Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
  105. Re:England & the UK don't know how good they h by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

    Your argument breaks down, though, in that if it really were just a bunch of bad apples, their fellow cops would arrest them for breaking the law. Instead, they support their brothers in blue no matter how clearly obvious it is that a crime has been committed by someone with a badge. In so doing, they become accessories to those crimes and invalidate their own badges.

    I'd really like to see, just once, a cop arrest another cop at one of these protests for excessive use of force. But not a one of them has the backbone to even try.

    --
    The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
  106. Re:difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhh, you're trying to spread the communism="evil" and fascism="not that bad" meme, but I think you've managed to fail your ultimate neo-conservative-spin goals.

    The analysis of the "liberal left" or whatever you'd call them doesn't go fascism->corporatism therefore corporatism bad. It starts at "we have corporatism", and then moves on to that being fascism and therefore evil.

    Corporatism=communism=evil is just as useful as corporatism=fascism=evil. The idea that corporatism is an evil marriage of faceless corporations and state violence is what's important. Not semantics or terminology.

  107. Far more sane than Frank Miller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from Miller being a hate-spewing idiot. . .

    Miller's Batman would have tried to haul V into jail.

    In Batman's world, bad guys are those who rob banks. In V's world, the banks are the bad guys.

    V is like the Joker with a moral center which isn't based on childhood baggage.

  108. Re:Not an politics fan? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Please. I know too much to fall for that Fanny Mae scapegoating. The two of them could have continued do poorly but it was the deregulation that allowed the sale of debts and repackaging them in schemes that were outright FRAUD which spread outside of them and infected the whole system. It didn't just cause them to collapse; the problem spread and multiplied outside of them and became far larger than the origin. Plus it was not just them, it was others doing similar (or worse) schemes and dumping their ponzi scheme like a hot potato on some sucker who bought that risk. Do you not realize how the ratings "industries" were involved in multiplying the problems from multiple sources and shifting them to others or the IRONY that the USA bond rating was lowered by the same corp who highly rated these frauds???

    Madoff's biggest mistake was not better packaging his crap and selling it off (to blow up in their faces) like the others did. LACK of law enforcement, investigation and regulations caused the mess; if you can't see that you are not bright enough to be in politics. Government needs to punish these frauds and they are not... if the people take action themselves, they are terrorists. Government is not functioning and part of that is bloat, I agree, but a complex society requires a larger government able to perform its duties. I can not understand why today so many people are pushing the same old talking points that were used to create the problem.

    Trouble with armed gangs? Get rid of more laws and have less police then you will have less crime! true... if their crimes are made legal and if criminals are not caught there will be less "crime".

    Reduce government corruption, we agree on that. But reducing government so it lacks the power to do its job to protect the citizens (and do their will) for things citizens can not do themselves. The big corporations RUN THE GOVERNMENT. You don't see it? when we hear about the **IA trying to pass even worse copyright laws and imposing their will on other nations with lax laws; and using the USA gov as their enforcer. What about the wikileaks on Monsanto having the state dept threaten Spain for being anti-GM food? This is not favoritism; it is way beyond that... well, its more like Monsanto favoring government officials than the other way around. Powerful forces who subvert the democratic process and democratic institutions. You've got it backwards. We've been down this backwards thinking since Nixon (except Carter years, it has pretty much progressed non stop.) Clinton did little a few moves that served more as cover than anything else.

    Under the flag of lowering government corruption the powerful crooks who corrupt the government create even better conditions for themselves. I remember how Bush weakened the ability of government to investigate the wealthy and focused the IRS on the little people; yeah, smaller government...

    We didn't live under the rule of law during Bush either, and the democracy was dysfunctional since Nixon. Carter was the last unapproved president and he was thwarted; we've only been allowed approved candidates since. How could one think such situations remain static? Without a huge mass movement to fix the problem it continues to go downhill each year. They don't need to setup a Colosseum for mass entertainment to distract us; we already had the biggest escapist culture on earth before things got bad; it'll have to fall relatively much more than Rome before the masses activate.

    You sir, do not like representative democracy. You think its better to have organizations where we the people do not have a vote?
    I can't actually control who is in office but the corporations CAN and DO. I can't control who runs the corporation and if I could take out the board, another like minded one would be put into place, restricted ONLY by regulation. Hell, its government regulation that created, defined, and empowered corporations in the 1st place-- they are government created organizations under private management; you have

  109. Re:England & the UK don't know how good they h by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

    Actually, there were investigations all the time into situations where a fellow cop did something wrong.

    For instance, I was point on an investigation into an officer that went in and deleted 10 or so database records, and was not authorized to do so. These records were of an arrest of a family member of his; a DUI, if I recall. He even went in and deleted the system records that recorded the original deletions. He failed to realize that deletion of system records is tracked recursively; he would have needed to turn off system records prior to deleting ANYTHING for it to have gone unnoticed. Access rights at that level belonged to one person at the agency (usually the database admin; not even the police chief typically has this info) and, of course, us. This guy was caught with no recourse; I was even able to find the deleted records by sifting through the backups. He is no longer a police officer, at least at that agency, and the firing was all done pretty efficiently.

    Others of my former colleagues would deal with this type of abuse, as well as its opposite: adding records to a database without grounds (mugshots, jail fines, court papers, etc for people who had committed no crime). We would also get requests all the time, as in, 2 or 3 for every 25-ish national support calls, for help aggregating records entered by a particular police officer over an alleged abuse of power (or for the defense of an accused officer's behavior; some cops really ARE wrongly accused). This wasn't a common enough task, especially at the smaller agencies, that the records clerks knew how to accomplish it alone, but it was common enough that we had a read-only report procedure written to accomplish it easily. Some of the bigger agencies would request their own modifications to this report, especially when the officer in question had been there for 30 years and accumulated enough records to slow the entire database while running the report. The agencies were typically not stupid (though there really were some Maybury-like organizations), and you can pretty much bet that anytime an officer is no longer an officer, he did something he shouldn't have, and the turnover rate for medium to large agencies is actually pretty high. It's in the best interest of the agency that you don't know the details, but it happens quite a lot.

    I actually agree, to a point, with your assessment that lots of cops *think* they're above the law. Even in the cases I pointed out, the officers weren't risking criminal penalties very often. All of the officers that got caught also got fired, losing pensions and all the other secondary benefits in addition to paychecks, but had I done the same thing, I'd have had to lawyer up. I suppose there are benefits to that; it's much easier to fire an officer quickly than to arrest and prosecute one, providing paid leave during the process.

    My argument isn't that cops are all or even mostly great people, just that there are some tremendous assholes that are working in an environment where their non-asshole or asshole-lite co-workers tend to focus on their own jobs, believing (hoping?) that the right higher-ups are on top of it. I'd guess most random samples of people would be like this, although I'd also guess that a random sample of police officers would show a somewhat higher capacity for abuse of power. There are reasons cops want to be cops, after all, and it seems likely that some officers went into law enforcement to wield power.

    Anyway, being a cop is much like any other job, and maybe it's like the military (never was an army grunt, going off hearsay). If Joe in cubicle C watches The Matrix all day long instead of finishing Tuesday's TPS report, I sort of expect him to fall at some point, but that's a management issue, not mine, and I have enough shit to do without the responsibility of opening that can of worms. Again, the fact that leadership and law is structured like this is the problem.