Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Feinstein Says Anarchist Cookbook Should Be "Removed From the Internet"
schwit1 writes with this snippet from Ars Technica: In the wake of the Thursday arrest of two women accused of attempting to build a bomb, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote on her website that the 1971 book on bomb making, which may have aided the terror suspects in some small way, should be "banned from the Internet."
The senator seems to fail to realize that not only has The Anarchist Cookbook been in print for decades (it's sold on Amazon!), but also has openly circulated online for nearly the same period of time. In short, removing it from the Internet would be impossible.
The senator seems to fail to realize that not only has The Anarchist Cookbook been in print for decades (it's sold on Amazon!), but also has openly circulated online for nearly the same period of time. In short, removing it from the Internet would be impossible.
Should be removed from congress.
yet holding a position of responsibility for it
so fucking stupid
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Says that Sen. Feinstein should be removed from the senate.
So what time is the book burning? I've got a whole library to go through. We'll have to hunt down that cloud so we can stab it with pitchforks, though.
She's also mentions Inspire Magazine.
Inspire used to be edited and mainly authored by Samir Khan Samir Khan was an American citizen, convicted of no crime; he was never even indicted. He was assassinated on orders of Barack Obama along with Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011.
So when these criminals like Feinstein talk about banning books, note they may also mean assassinating the authors.
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
Can I suggest we hostfile her computer so just about anything goes to a Barney The Dinosaur archive page or something. She will be happy and so will we.
"You can't take something *off* the Internet; That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool!"
If learning to make makeshift firearms, explosives, traps, poisons, and other such things interests you, The Poor Man's James Bond is a better series of books. While I don't agree with taking the Anarchist's Cookbook away categorically, it is a pretty dangerous publication in that the instructions (particularly those dealing with explosives) are not very well written, leave out critical steps and safety information. They could potentially cause serious harm or death to the person trying to make them if they do the process like the author outlines.
Remember, this book was written by a pissed off kid during the Vietnam War. He wasn't an expert with practical hands-on experience. It was something he wrote by researching topics at the public library, and then kept submitting it to publishers until one accepted him.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
The Anarchist Cookbook is not a threat. It is complete crap. Its author eventually admitted he was clueless and didn't know what he was doing. Just an idiot mashing up incomplete and sometimes erroneous info. In other words a typical 60s radical.
Leave the Anarchist Cookbook alone, it is a far greater hazard to anyone trying to use its instructions than to the public. Let Darwin have his way.
"Are the USian voters so damn stupid?"
Yes, they are, almost all of them, no matter who they vote for.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Making things go boom isn't terrorism, but it's treated as such. Reading books about how things could be made to go boom isn't terrorism. Intent is behind terrorism more than any amount of relevant knowledge.
Every driver, however, has a terrorist tool at their hands. You can buy bottles of gas for a pittance. You can't stop the tools because the tools are so damn simple and cheap and basically include every compact source of energy we have and use (I'm waiting for the first electric battery / supercapacitor terrorist, but the energy density is probably still too low to do anything but blow your own head off).
Terrorism is designed to invite terror. To make you fear the people doing it.
By doing what we're doing as a planet now - making terror so terrifying and then beaming it into every home - we're basically playing right into their hands. One guy, with one simple device can make the news worldwide. Even if it's a complete botch (I'll say "shoe bomber", you tell me if you've heard of him, now tell me why you now have to take shoes off in airport security when you NEVER used to have to).
Want to defeat terrorism? Stop giving a shit about them.
The UK was dealing with terrorists willing to bomb cities and bring down planes since the 70's (and a lot further back than that because we were arseholes). We learned how to deal with them - ignore them. Don't stop catching them, but just make their efforts have so little impact that - in this case - they give up the terrorism and become politicians.
IRA bombings in the UK (and London especially) only invited comments like "Fuck, I'll be late for work now" or "Does anyone know which buses are still running?" Stop terrorism being terrifying and you're just some pillock who blew himself up.
It's the same with historical "terrorism". We're all scared of Nazi's and Naziist groups. Want to destroy them overnight? Change the international symbol for toilet to a swastika, and label it a "Nazi". "Where's the Nazi, I need a shit?" Instantly destroys the power in the word and the association it has.
But, no, places like France and Germany continue - over FIFTY YEARS LATER - to ban Nazi-related items. It's a Streisand effect. The best part of my walking-tour of Berlin I did a few years ago - they stop outside a building with a car park. They tell you that's where Hitler's bunker was. You're so fucking terrifying, your legacy is under a car park, mate.
People don't know how to deal with terrorists because they are far too self-centered. "What if *I* was blown up?" Fuck that, what if we allow people to get infamy so easily just because they tried to blow other people up? What if we make terrorism so terrifying they are instantly heroes for our enemies and we cower in fear of them? What if we spend billions on a international manhunt for one man in the public eye proving that MILLIONS of people are scared of one man who did nothing noteworthy himself but orchestrated others? What if we live in a world where terrorists get on the news and science doesn't? Fuck THAT.
Terrorists are cocks. And we're pandering to their media whims, like fucking dickheads. Want to see a proper reaction to terrorism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You beat terrorists by removing the terror. Then they have nothing left.
They don't have to be liars either, they can just be incredibly dumb and still get re-elected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For democrats, it mainly comes down to the belief that their guy will give them free stuff (money for nothing, chicks for free.)
For republicans, it mainly comes down to "is he conservative enough" without any clear definition of what "conservative" actually is. The British equivalent (if you're from there) would be that they want to make sure he's a True Scottsman.
You have to be a "natural-born citizen", but no-one really knows what that means.
Not true, "natural-born citizen" is well understood. It means that you were a citizen of the United States of America at the time of your birth. There are various ways of being so born. Being born in the US is one. Being born to a US parent is another. So whether you are born in Canada, Mexico, Panama or Kenya does not matter so long as you have one or more US parents. Its really not that complicated at all.
It works like this:
American politicians have worked for decades to decode the U.S. voter and their habits. They spend millions of dollars annually on "focus groups" and "mock votes" in order to successfully determine the most advantageous avenues to manipulate the electorate into supporting them in their efforts to remove rights from the electorate, disenfranchise the electorate, and more firmly establish the elected as a modern day aristocracy in spite of US law and constitutional impetus. Look up "wedge issue" to see how the party leadership will use specific issues to fracture a voting block and turn them against each other. Watch how each party incites their proscribed demographic to feel threatened by others. Note how politicians play at fighting the other party, but vote as a whole when presented with an opportunity to curtail, circumvent, or remove rights guaranteed to the people by the constitution and/or bill of rights. And pay special attention to the media mouthpieces when they call out their leaders on their faults. It provides a voice for people's recognition of total incongruity on the part of their leaders, but by voicing it the supporters' ire is assuaged and they go merrily and sheepishly back to fighting the opposition and completely forget to hold their leaders accountable.
In America there are two political parties. They are not liberal and conservative. They are not Republican and Democrat. They are simply the elected and the electorate. Anyone who forgets this or fails to see it, at any time, is a pawn, a sheep...and therefore untrustworthy, compromised. They are exactly equal to those religious people that atheists and sceptics so vociferously condemn. They have lost control of their intellect and sacrificed their freedom and judgement in pursuit of an empty purse. They cannot be trusted even with their own self interest, much less the advancement of society as a whole.
So, welcome to America, where Rome is burning and all anyone does is comment on how good it looks in HD. Stay away if you value your sanity, your freedom, and your connection to humanity.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children"
Democrats are just as willing to use that canard, they just use it to support violation of different rights than Republicans do. For example, this, or just as a general magic phrase to demand access to your wallet.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
~10 years old. Wanted to make a large "Silvesterknaller" (small explosive for New Years).
Went to a public library and looked at a few old books, describing how to make black powder and other things that go boom.
Bought a few chemicals, build an electronic igniter and it went boom. It was too easy to achieve so I lost interest in blowing things up.
It's like the brouhaha about 3D printing guns. Every hardware store has better stock to make something that accelerates a projectile /FacePalm
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
To understand her position you need to understand where she's coming from. She's probably one of the few politicians to have seen gun violence first hand. She was there when the SF Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated. She grabbed Harvey Milk's wrist to check for a pulse and her finger entered one of Milk's bullet wounds and was badly shaken by the event.
Basing laws on the irrational emotional reactions of a PTSD sufferer is probably not the best way to go. And it certainly is no excuse for betrayal of the constitution and the deception and manipulation of voters.
Most people think of their location in terms of political entities rather than geography.
there are examples of the opposite. people in canary islands, for example, refer to themselves as "canarios", not "spanish". that makes sense, however, because the term isn't inaccurate.
Point taken, but in that case, their term is more specific and helps distinguish them from a larger group -- the exact opposite of the way you want to use "Americans." And you'll note that they do not call themselves "Africans" despite their islands being geographically part of that continent.
That's not just an American thing.
can you remember any other instance where the name of a whole continent is appropriated by a single country as "nationality"? thought so.
The Republic of India, generally called "India" and whose citizens are generally called "Indians", despite sharing the subcontinent of India with Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Do you call the citizens of the Republic of India "RoIans"?
Besides which, the idea that it's an "appropriation" is silly. Next to no one uses it that way in everyday conversation or refers to themselves primarily that way, because it doesn't tell you anything useful about them. If I tell you someone is an American in the nationality sense, that lets you make some generalizations about them -- you know he probably speaks English, you know to a degree what kind of food he eats, what TV shows he watches, who the leader of his country is, etc. (Feel free to snark if you wish here). If I use it in the geographic sense, it tells me... what, exactly, besides the tautology that they live on either the North American or South American continent? That they set their clocks between UTC-3 and UTC-11? Heck, just telling me if a person lives north or south of the equator tells me more about where they live than saying that they live in the Americas.
In short, when a word has multiple meanings, people naturally gravitate towards the meaning that's most useful. Referring to someone as an American in the sense you want to use it is only slightly more useful than telling me they're a Terran.
you should be able to understand how nonsensical this looks from anywhere outside united states.
i know that this is customary in the states, but you guys should also note that this is the internets where you are being read.
It's used that way in plenty of other countries, including Canadians, who would have as much right to be annoyed by the supposed "appropriation" as anyone else. My impression is that they're proud of their demonym and have no great yearning to lump themselves in with a couple dozen other countries by calling themselves "Americans."
Furthermore, at a guess I'd expect that "American" in the nationality sense came into common man-on-the-street usage (as opposed to political tracts or whatnot) outside the US before it did so inside it, because for the first 75 years -- prior to the US Civil War -- most people here tended to designate themselves and others by their state rather than national identity. They didn't primarily think and speak of themselves as Americans but as Virginians, Vermonters, Ohioans, Kentuckians, etc.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."