Slashdot Mirror
Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'
rossgneumann writes North Korea may really be behind the Sony hack, but we're still acting like idiots. Peter W. Singer, one of the nations foremost experts on cybersecurity, says Sony's reaction has been abysmal. "Here, we need to distinguish between threat and capability—the ability to steal gossipy emails from a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously. I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this."
Home of the brave.
Nobody's hacking, noob. You just suck!
What can be explained as a propaganda campaign. Expect this controversial piece of fine art to reach you a way or the other.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
This is a guy who makes a living being a cyber cop for the gov. He needs to come out and say that any 9/11 type cyber attack is also just as ridiculous as this and that his career is a sham.
Yea but... they only have to pull it off at 1 theater.
And it doesn't have to be NK that does it... some crazy nut job could... and Sony would be on the hook for liability.
If Sony were smart (which they definitely are not) they would have leaked the movie as a torrent themselves, blamed North Korea, and then with the Sword of Demaclese now lying squarely at their feet moved on with their lives. They may have pulled the movie from theaters but it could still get released, and until that threats gone NK will continue with the pain.
surely now we should all be afraid enough to allow the MPAA to take control of the internet - only THEY can protect us from TERRORISM, while we're at it lets give the NSA even more access, they can catch the TERRORISTS then they can lock up those filthy movie pirates too....see everyone wins!
I don't think I'd enjoy the gutter humor at all, but frankly just to spite the hackers I'd go see the movie... oh wait we're all cowards now so I can't go see it.
Sony is the same company that threatened to crush our 4th Amendment rights if anyone tried to speak about their email leaks.
To implement an agenda of draconian regulation than use the "Sony Crisis" as an excuse.
When the cattle can't see its latest iteration of Seth Rogen's poor acting, hit them where it hurts, right in the opiate of the masses.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
To hear Sony explain to its shareholders how spending tens of millions of dollars to produce and millions more to promote a movie that they now have no plans to release is a good thing.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
North Korea has nuclear weapons and a million soldier army. They might be hungry but that could drive them over the edge, by now they are more than crazy enough.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
They were forced to. And not by the hackers, by the five largest movie chains pulling out. At that point it was best to not show it at all.
I'm sure Sony will release it on DVD/BluRay/streaming once they get their shit together and beef up their security. Right now though, no, it makes no sense to release the movie to a few small theaters.
I cannot help but wonder if Sony is really just scared of internal documents being leaked. This hype about threats at our nation's movie theaters seems like an excuse, when in reality they really are hoping that incredibly embarrassing or financially damaging information will not be shown to the public if they pull the movie. I heard they wont even release it on DVD or on demand, so why is the hype about threats at movie theaters even being discussed since that really does not make much sense if Sony could just release it on DVD or on demand?
What's this "we" stuff? Anywhoo, a portion of the "normal" population IS easily paralyzed by fear or prone to hysteria. Sometimes both. Another portion of them think they are but find they are able to act when push comes to shove. If it weren't for the big-ass herd, the first group would quickly be eaten by bears. Since they're not, we just have to deal with their hand-wringing. Sony obviously knows this, since they were very supportive and didn't just say "We think you're being a bunch of pussies, so show our damn movie already." Mr. Singer apparently doesn't, since that's pretty much what he said.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There certainly are MPAA missiles pointed at major cinemas, ready to be launched when a theatre room is overrolled by out of control camcording pirates. If North Korea has the launch codes, this could take out major cities.
The only way to end the "better safe than sorry" stupidity that results in all sorts of cowardice and mayhem from cops shooting on the slightest hint of "I was afeered for muh life" to this is to brutally punish that mentality in court in a very public way. Let the Sony shareholders financially rape the executives who reacted hysterically to such a non-threat. Start putting cops in prison for decades or death row left and right the way ordinary people would. Heck, when one someone starts advocating fundamentally subversive to the Bill of Rights legal changes, charge their ass with sedition and lock them up.
People tend to rediscover common sense when the penalty for choosing to not use it is swift and severe.
My guess is they are more afraid of what is in those emails that hasn't been released yet. Especially if it has something the feds might be interested in or might wreck someone's marriage. Losing 20mil on a movie isn't much compared to that, for an exec that makes millions a year.
If Sony really wanted to make a statement they could release it on dvd or free with ads on any of the many streaming services.
If they bow to hacker pressure now, they just painted a larger target on themselves for future hacker groups.
The theaters already said they would not show it. So what is Sony to do? Release it anyway with only showing in obscure theaters and it gets bad box office earnings, or don't release it until next year sometime when everything has blow over and it can get a shot at a normal opening weekend.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
As soon as I heard this story, I realized it's not Sony Pictures giving in to threats to an AMC in Des Moines - It's likely Sony Pictures execs giving in to threats to themselves and their families: "If you release this movie we'll kill your children."
Of course I doubt NK has the reach to pull off those threats, but pretty chilling nonetheless...
Maybe this has more to do with the threat of releasing more information "if their demands aren't met" than it does the threat of physical attacks? Maybe there really was some backroom discussion between Sony and the big theater chains to scrap the release because of this?
Or maybe not. It's probably just stupidity.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
We are talking a movie that has a lot of hype, but may not last past the first weekend. A lot of people were planning on seeing it, but are people going to make a statement and risk some lone gun nut coming in and killing several people
Is it commercially responsible to pay for the distribution of a film when people may be afraid of the consequences of seeing it? Might it be more commercially responsible to release it when the heat dies down. Are parents going to allow their kids to see this movie know a lone gun nut might kill them?
Again, we really don't know what is going on here. Team America already killed this guy in the movies, and made fun of him in the most racist of ways(I so ronery). But this is just a movie. It's purpose is to generate revenue for sony. It is not an 'film' so it's sole purpose is to generate revenue for Sony. It has some hype, but it also has some risk. Again, not of movie theaters being bombed, but of someone, who does not necessarily have and national backing, coming in with tactical shotguns and 100 round rifles and killing several people. This is not that hard to imagine as it happens with some regularity.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Here's your main reason:
If ONE person is injured/killed within a 10 mile radius of a theater and the person doing the killing proclaims any notion of it being done because of the release of the movie, the relatives of the one shot will sue Sony for millions of dollars due to the release of the film that Sony KNEW could unleash terrorism. Imagine if it happened at 5 locations? What about one nutjob in one theater ala the Batman movie a few years ago? Sony would be put at fault for blatantly disregarding public safety by knowingly releasing a film. It's the same reason newspapers won't print an image of Mohammed or that South Park had to pull an episode that was going to show Mohammed.
Hyper-sensitivity to everything for fear of litigation.
Nothing else would feed the 24 hour news cycle.
While on its face this reaction appears quite stupid, if there were just one physical attack on one theater, the survivors and families of the victims would sue Sony for a lot claiming that they had a credible threat and ignored it.
Mind you, I believe that they are just using this as a propaganda move. Free publicity, and when it does finally get released the attendance will be significantly higher than it otherwise would have been.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Is the nation-state of North Korea capable of setting off a single bomb in a single (basically public) location in the US?
If we knew that 5 theaters were going to be attacked, but didn't know which, does that mean we should go forward with the opening?
While I agree with the concern over bending to threats, I think it's a straw man to claim that the issue is whether 18,000 locations can be attacked and so I think the claim of "incapable" is actually wrong.
I've been saying this from the get-go, Sony should not be coddled like they are the victim. This hack went on for months and probably for years they've been hiring the cheapest sysadmins overseas and buying 'solutions' from companies "well reviewed" in NetworkWorld (or whatever sponsored magazines middle management gets) to implement on their network that in the end didn't do squat.
Instead of being coddled, they should be fined for aiding and abetting and breaking privacy laws.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I have posted that yesterday : the feedback I read from people having watched the film in preview told that it was horribly bad. Now they have made sure that for the next days or maybe even week they made the film "unforgettable". Maybe I am paranoid but I would bet that it is a PR coup on Sony side.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Really? They don't have to do 18,000 simultaneous attacks. One or two would suffice to put a crippling chill on ticket sales for the rest of the season.
First, Sony's hand was essentially forced to pull the movie. With the major theaters refusing to show the movie, it wasn't financially sound to release it to small independent theaters.
Second, I doubt that the theater chains believe that North Korea would pull off such a crime, but that doesn't stop the odd crazy American nut job from using this as an excuse to fulfill their deranged fantasies. Not only do dead movie goers stop contributing to your bottom line, the survivor's lawyers would have a field day in court with all the "You were warned!" lawsuits.
If North Korea got this information and threatened to reveal it, that would definitely explain why Sony caved quicker than the Iraqian army when first attacked by Isis.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's not a concern about maniacs hitting 18,000 theaters simultaneously, its about hitting one. Even if a single theater is attacked by one moron doing a copy cat attack, the people injured could sue the living bejesus out of Sony, and an the PR spin would be even worse than it is now. Personally, I think it should be leaked to the internet, so about a billion people can see what only a few million would have seen otherwise, and then release and uncut directors version on DVD 6 months from now after all this insanity has died down.
Regal Cinema et al. are not really worried about terror strikes. Muslim terrorists have made threats against various movies for decades and it hasn't stopped anything from being shown, and this is from groups that have proven experience blowing things up.
What these companies are in fact scared shitless is the kind of cyberattack that Sony suffered. As bad as Sony security might have been, I guarantee it was heads and shoulders above what any of these theater chains have in place. Sony was able to shrug off millions in damages, but for AMC it could be lights out. At the very least it would beat out the profits of showing a mediocre comedy. This is why they're scared to show the interview - concerns about "terror attacks" are a smokescreen.
I mean seriously, was anyone actually going to watch this other than Seth Rogen's mom?
I tend not to trust the US government at all, but in this case it seems extremely likely that North Korea is in fact behind this as they say. If that's the case, then we are probably seeing a re-orientation of the US government towards a different enemy. Taking tension out of the relations with Cuba, reassessing the torture stupidity and being more proactive about closing Guantanamo have all been long overdue because all these insanities happen only for reasons of interior policy and hurt the US extremely in terms of international diplomacy.
It would make sense for this event to be connected to the recent confrontation with Russia (who might have provided misleading intelligence to North Korea suggesting the US would not react to such retaliation against Sony for embarrassing North Korea's leader), but in any case the realisation they are en route to two extremely costly wars (with no oil to win) -- both of them close to or in China's sphere of interest -- could have prompted some emergency measures by the US government to try and restore international good will.
If I have analysed the situation correctly, we are just seeing the usual manipulations of international public opinion that are a necessary preparation for war in a (pro-forma or real) democracy. For a war against North Korea, not Russia. To this end, the threat must be exaggerated and connected to an American trauma, rather than treated proportionally.
The dialogue pinning the attack on DPRK serves many purposes, and it's been quite fun to watch this event transform from "Fuck Sony" to our ever present "Oh Noez! A bogey man" dialectic. We already have politicians claiming that the DPRK made an act of war (Newt Gingrich) and according to at least FOX and ABC the US is officially blaming the DPRK for the cyber attack (though neither have specified what agency this is). Even though evidence is weak at best.
Anyone believing the "terrorist" propaganda must somehow also believe that the DPRK has millions of bomb strapping terrorists stationed in the US ready to flock into Star and AMC to bomb people for watching a comedy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Um... that may be, but they've got nuclear warheads, and missiles capable of hitting a strategic ally that we still have some responsibility towards for defense.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
I can't wait to see how Sony and the MPAA somehow spin this whole mess into how movie piracy is somehow secretly funding North Korea, Terrorists, and all of 'Merica's enemies...
For the record, Sony Pictures did not cancel the release in response to the hacker threats. The five theater chains cancelled showings in response to those threats. Sony Pictures then indefinitely postponed the "release date". The article and most of the comments here are misstating what happened. The Theaters may or may not be "idiotic" but after the lawsuits from the Colorado Batman Joker killers its not quite "idiotic" to demonstrate due diligence to the threat.
Gently reply
Sony wins big by announcing they are going to damn the terrorists and release the movie anyway. They cash in on the enormous amount of free publicity and now every American wants to see it to snub the terrorists. They just need to convince the public there isn't a credible threat to movie theaters getting blown up.
is for sony to host a free screening of this movie next saturday.
we can't cancel the release, full stop, or the terrorists win.
we can't all go pay to see this shitsloppic, or the sony marketing team wins.
we can't all cry foul, demand that they show the movie, and then not go see it, because then canada wins.
no - sony must stand up to the terrorists, show the movie for free on one day (or even just one single time, but in all theaters at once) and then drop the mic.
Not so much, if you are a corporation. The terrorists win. Not a shot fired. Behavior is changed, events are cancelled, angst pervades. Not with a gun or a bomb, but with a torrent this battle was won. Who'd a thunk? Outlook spools as shock and awe. OTH, maybe this better? No actual physical harm ITRW. Still for those corporate execs, light, heat and fallout and the same instinct to duck under their desk. If you can disrupt the infotainment ecosphere, can you cause wide spread mayhem in the real world? Perhaps understandable for MegaPlex execs after Colorado. But for Sony, hard to be sympathetic to serial incompetence. Whatever David Bois is charging them, it isn't enough.
I was just getting ready to go see " THE INTERVIEW".
SONY lost an American free market opportunity.
That's just silly to act like someone would need to attack 18,000 theatres simultaneously for it to be bad. ONE pipe bomb in ONE theater would be a problem. The capability to do so? I made pyrotechnic devices in 6th grade. I knew, in 6th grade, that if I used a metal pipe as the casing instead of a cardboard tube I'd have a bomb. This guy is pretending bad guys don't or can't do what many of us could do in elementary school.
If I see this guy at a cybersecurity conference I may have to call him out on his BS.
I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this.
This has been my life for the past couple decades. I am often the "voice of reason", and I don't have the heart to tell folks "No, I'm the voice of common sense", although I suspect they wouldn't get it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think this video sums it up pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
In the article, the Peter Singer states, "Someone killed 12 people and shot another 70 people at the opening night of Batman: The Dark Knight [Rises]. They kept that movie in the theaters. You issue an anonymous cyber threat that you do not have the capability to carry out? We pulled a movie from 18,000 theaters."
In some ways, the comparison between the response to this current threat against movie theaters and the rampage that happened 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado is appropriate. Both target movie theaters and the people in them. But that's where it ends.
The Aurora shooting has gone down in history as an unforeseeable tragedy the fault of which lay entirely with the shooter. Everyone said, "This was very sad," and no one's expecting any victims' civil suits to win anything.
In fairly extreme contrast, ***IF*** Sony were to allow the movie to be shown in theaters and ***IF*** someone attacked a movie theater for any reason relating to the showing of the movie, then Sony would be very publicly acknowledged as having fault in the harm done to theater-goers and would be sued out of existence.
Everything in this decision has to do with LIABILITY. Even if the probability is extremely low, the potential liability is astronomical. It doesn't make financial sense for Sony to allow the movie to be shown.
Aside: Notice who the puppets and the puppet-masters are here. Those making the threats hold the strings, but they're not playing Sony. They're playing the American public. They know that the American public are so unhappy with their opportunities to be super-rich that they see legal liability as one of their few chances to get MILLIONS! As such, the nation is extremely risk-averse thus thoroughly negating out espoused resolve to not be susceptible to terroristic threats.
To be cliche, the enemy is us.
is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously.
Who said anything about them having to hit 18,000 locations simultaneously. That isn't how terrorism works. The 911 guys did not have have to hit thousands of targets, they only tried for three, managed only two (counting the WTC complex as a single target) and look at all the trouble they caused!
A coordinated attack on only a handful of movie theaters the same night would be plenty to cause an economically significant portion of this countries population spend the holiday Christmas - New Years stretch cowering in their homes rather than going out and spending money. It would almost certainly lead to all kinds of wild ill considered national security response.
Hell look at the Batman Shooting a few years ago. It takes one suicide attacker to "hit" a theater with essentially no real resources. A few thousand in counterfeit notes (which DPRK has produced in the past) would allow would be assailants to put together the arsenal they need. Its perfectly plausible even DPRK could get three or four people into this country with limited fake credentials and no access to anything privileged enough to do even a basic background check.
I am not saying "OMG we all going to die here" but you can't completely dismiss the threat either here. Having hit Sony they have already demonstrated some capability.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Absolutely! Nothing could be more in keeping with the Bill of Rights than having widespread systematic imprisonment for expressing views you disagree with.
So compromising a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same as compromising a not-so-great protected computer network?
Table-ized A.I.
To be fair, they wouldn't have to attack 18,000 theaters to achieve the desired effect. One or two would be quite sufficient. I still don't think the release of the movie should be stopped, of course. At the very least, have it up on Netflix and Amazon Prime asap. Or even better, put it up as a DRM-free download straight from Sony. That may be the best PR move Sony could make at this point.
Migt be DRM Free
When dealing with a criminally-insane opponent, their threat of 'bombing' movie theaters may be empty & unsubstantiated, but considering that this very threat **was made via Sony corporate network computer screens**, then that means the opponent still has access to Sony's network, and frankly the threat could mean *anything*... more data wiping/sabotage, or something else. Why take the risk over a shitty, low-budget comedy?
Plus, any nutcase with a gun off his meds could shoot up a theater, Aurora'CO-style, and Sony would get sued. So, yeah. If I were Sony I would do the same thing, pissant naysayers be damned.
In other, I'm surprised that the CIO and/or Senior IT Admin staff hasn't been sacked yet.
+1 Insightful (if I had mod points today). This is exactly what I came here to say. The major chains likely thought there was a sufficiently greater than 0 chance that they'd target at least one, and it might be theirs.
On that, I differ quite strongly. Just like the bottom of my Slashdot tab says "Comments owned by the poster.", comments made by American citizens are not owned by the government, nor should the government have anything to say about it, including apologizing for them. I suppose if asked, the government should simply say that: "The movie was the product of Sony and doesn't reflect the opinions of the U.S. government." Just like every other movie the U.S. government isn't involved in. And that's the end of it.
"Comments owned by the poster." is a legal structure which requires a legal institution in order to have any interpretation whatsoever. The real issue here is that there are two legal institutions: the USA one, and the Korean one.
So which set of laws are you going to choose to enforce? Yours or theirs? You'll choose yours. They'll choose theirs. That's a pretty solid Nash equilibrium whereby lots of people die purely because lots of laws conflict.
So if you're going to prioritize life and blood, instead of freedom and liberty -- some wold argure that life and blood are the very basis for freedom and liberty, others would argure the exact opposite -- then you're going to need to do something to avoid the war. Since all it would take is a couple of words, that would seem to be the most cost effective solutions. And since the entire copyright and freedom of expression is there to protect economies and blood, it would stand to reason that the diplomatic solution would be the most rational of actions.
Now, like I said, I don't at all expect your country to take that route. It's just not in your nature, as you've so directly stated. And so, if the movies are released, I will 'conveniently' take my family and friends on a trip far far far away from your borders.
It's not fear of an actual attack. It's fear of the economic consequences (public fear) of showing The Interview in a multi-screen theater where other also profitable shows are showing, thus reducing profits for the duration of the run.
Blah blah blah, rhetoric, blah blah blah, media frenzy of the day, blah blah blah.
Neither. US laws aren't applicable to North Korea, and North Korean laws aren't applicable here. I'm arguing that the correct moral and ethical standard is that we are not liable for what other people say. If Sony did something wrong, that's on Sony, not the U.S. government or the U.S. people. Do you feel compelled to apologize for me holding an opinion you disagree with? You shouldn't. You're not responsible for what I say, any more than the U.S. government is responsible for what Sony says, which by the way they only "say" in a work of ficiton, that happens to be a comedy.
No, that reinforces the false notion that the government is responsible for things its private citizens say. That may be difficult for a dictatorship to understand, but it's the truth. Just go take a look at all the people on the planet who have at one time or another chanted "death to America", and notice how very many of them we've attacked for it. That would be, what, none? I suspect if the roles were reversed, our response would be something between total indifference and "That's tacky."
The diplomatic solution is to say what's true. Whatever it is in the movie you guys are ticked about, we didn't say. Apologizing for what other people do has always seemed like nothing more than a meaningless statement to me.
And yet the last temptation of christ never had that problem despite reams of threat, and at least ONE REAL theater being burned down with molotov cocktail.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Apologies are absolutely meaningless statements, just like movie lines. And since we're dealing with a country that cares about apologies, it costs you absolutely nothing to give it -- and it savfes you a few billion dollars.
As for being responsible for private citizens, most terrorist attacks are done by private citizens. And since your laws don't count in the foreign country, I guess you should just sit back and do nothing, because the attacks came from outside of your jurisdiction, and they were just private citizens. Except you don't. You attack the entire country instead -- remember?
But there's something so much simpler going on here. Who the hell cares what's right, moral, or correct. You could kill people, you could get people killed, or you could say a few words. You're going to take the death approach because you believe that principles outweigh actual lives. Good for you. My family won't be around to bleed for your principles. I trust your family will stand with you -- or sit -- in the theatre. I can see my local headlines now: "USA gets blown up sitting down."
Let me know when your country grows up just a little bit. It's been a few hundred years, and you haven't progressed one iota.
Bully: "I've gathered up a bunch of people and we're all gonna make fun of you. And we're gonna get your friends to laugh at you and turn against you too."
Victim: "Why? I'm not bothering you at all."
Bully: "Because you're not like us."
Victim: "Well I like my friends. If you don't stop, then I'm gonna smack you."
Bully: "Oh! Oh... well, I don't wanna be smacked. Never mind."
Bully's supporters: "Hey hey hey, he's not the boss of you! Come on! We'll laugh at him with you! He won't hit you, he's bluffing!"
Looks like a media storm to increase sales for what looks to be a crappy movie.
The threat communicated did not arise from trilby-flinging basement dwellers hiding behind Guy Fawkes masks. The threat was issued by the information warfare arm of the North Korean Army. The Norks have a number of sleepers around the US and they are feared by the residents of the ethnic Korean neighborhoods and recognized as a threat the .gov. These guys are the real deal. Singer's dismissal of the issue is glib.
Indeed, though antagonizing your opponents like that probably isn't going to help the cause.
There is no long a point in trying not antagonizing them. Pretty much anyone who is still actively lobbying against private ownership of guns is either ignoring the evidence, incapable of uncerstandng it, or has a hidden agenda (such as creating victim-rich zones for govenment or criminal activity).
These people are not going to be converted. Things are far enough long that we no longer need them as straw men to raise the bogus argumets to be knocked down with logic. (Those who can be convinced with logic are now mostly either convinced or subject to information shortage). But they remain useful as targets of ridicule, so those who are more interested in being with the in crowd than making smart decisions can be converted.
For those still uncertain on the issue: Do you want to reduce murder, rape, assault, robery, criminal victimization, and institutional suppression of minority groups? Or do you want to want to reduce gun possession? There is no longer any question: More guns mean less of all those things.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The only way to end the "better safe than sorry" stupidity that results in all sorts of cowardice and mayhem from cops shooting on the slightest hint of "I was afeered for muh life" to this is to brutally punish that mentality in court in a very public way
If someone does attack a police officer, like that moron Michael Brown did, then deadly force is an acceptable outcome. Given the evidence, the grand jury in Fergusson made the right decision. That doesn't mean there aren't issues with the police force. That doesn't mean the "blue wall of silence" shouldn't be smashed with a sledgehammer. That doesn't mean that racial profiling doesn't occur, or that sentencing in our justice system isn't ridiculous. But a movement pushing for reform couldn't have picked a worse, worse poster child. What a shame. The tinder pile had built up so high that just the tiniest, insignificant spark was enough to set it ablaze.
Heck, when one someone starts advocating fundamentally subversive to the Bill of Rights legal changes, charge their ass with sedition and lock them up
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of you for making such a statement. Why, some of them believed in entirely scrapping the Constitution every once in awhile and starting fresh, so the laws could reflect the needs and will of the people. Those laws are not set in stone. They are very hard to change for a reason, but sedition + jail time for advocating changes to the Constitution is nonsense.
People tend to rediscover common sense when the penalty for choosing to not use it is swift and severe.
As I seem to recall, that prohibition against excessive punishment comes from the inviolable Bill of Rights as well.
Sorry, but since I am not a thug, I'm ok with the cops shooting first and asking questions later. I'm also ok with the fact that mistakes will be made.
Careful, someone will accuse you of racism. Apparently "thug" means "20 or 30-something black male" now, not "young man with a gangster/crime-oriented mentality and poor upbringing."
We could start with not calling this a hack. It was espionage and theft, aided by humans on the inside as evidenced by the specific target vectors inside sloppy code.
Calling this a hack gives it credence it shouldn't have AND lets Sony off the hook somewhat. It's MUCH better, apparently, to say "we wuz hack-ed!" instead of the more truthful "we are cheap and stupid folks with some of the worst IT policies on Earth!"
I am my own gestalt.
the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate
Language is changing. "Hate" used to be a noun, and usually a verb. Like "his hate was aimed at the wrong person" or "he hated the wrong person"; in each case "hate" being the opposite of "love".
"To hate" has developed a new meaning. Someone who "hates on Obama" isn't the same as someone who "hates Obama". Instead, it means making wild accusations against Obama, which usually have no rational explanation but are just issued to hurt or annoy the person himself or his supporters.
A similar case, compare the totally different meanings of "He hit the girl" and "He hit on the girl". Or just check here: http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
Err that is more people than Australia.
There is nothing safer then being "made helpless by law".
...
Oh yeah
CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL. Because condensation because of low pressure vortices is much less believable then a secret program to spend money to spray chemicals that have never been detected and have never been reported by low paid airport ramp workers!
While we are talking to idiots... What other swamp land can I sell?
There's your problem - you were trying to convince people with logic. That almost never works, even among intelligent, educated people. Do a little research on how to actually have a chance to change people's minds - there's even a few good TED talks on the subject, though I can't recall any details at the moment.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Have you seen people drive? Road rage? Now think many of these same people with guns.
Target range practice is a very powerful biofeedback mechanism for teaching the suppression of the production of adrenaline and of all symptoms of excitement. Aligning gun sights - a pair of visual targets separated by about the length of the gun barrel (inches, a foot, or several feet), aligning them with a target (at tens of feet), and holding the alignment, gives visibility to even microscopic tremors and movement. Getting the image right and stable means drastically suppressing this movement. Over a number of range sessions, this leads to learning how to be icy calm, as a reflex, in the midst of a very stressful environment (full of intermittent explosions, bright lights, acrid smells, and odd-temperature winds).
(The effect is extreme. It was discovered that good target shooters, thinking they were just controlling their breath, had actually learned to "stop their heartbeat" - compressing the time between the pairs of beats before and after firing a shot and doubling the time between beats during the trigger pull.)
The result is that, after just a few good sessions, this becomes imprinted. Even in a rage, putting your hand on a gun drops you into that icy calm state.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is why I now love Sony.
"Why are you IT guys so expensive?" Because otherwise, Sony.
"Why is IT so slow?" Because Sony
"But I can and it's cheap" Yep. Sony.
In house IT isn't expensive because people are stupid, it's because doing it properly, securely, with data integrity, resilience, etc isn't easy, isn't cheap and needs checks and balances that sadly slow the processes.
Or Sony. But hey, it's your business.
Realizing that these people are like those suffering from Stockholm Syndrome--after all when Kim Jong il died, people were being arrested because they were not showing remorse if they were vocally carrying on for the demise of their leader, I'm sure that for those who are under the new Kim Jong Un regime the people must also act accordingly. So this is a perfectly normal reaction that I would expect. Think about it!
I saw the trailer, not sure if this is a big loss to the free world.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
One guy gets shot in one theater, in a matter totally unrelated to the North Korean connection, and there would be a lawsuit that would swallow the entire projected profits of the movie. "To be clear, you had prior warning that attacks would ensue and you went ahead anyway?!!??" "Yes, but" "Witness will restrict himself to answering the question directly!!"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Neah, the slang "hate on" (according to your own link) still has the same meaning: "To ridicule, insult, or act hatefully [emphasis mine] toward," — as the regular "hate". That otherwise well-written and spoken people would denigrate their speech to slang is just what I was referring to. I'm glad, it passed...
Well, here the word "hit" has a completely different and unrelated meaning. A "hit" of something (like cocaine) is yet another unrelated meaning. That's not like "hate (on)" at all...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.