Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spain's Hologram Protest: Thousands Join Virtual March In Madrid

Posted by samzenpus on from the toon-protest dept.

An anonymous reader writes Thousands of people marched past a parliament building in Madrid to protest a new law that they say endangers civil liberties. But none of them were actually there. From the article: "Late last year the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law, which will take effect on July 1, Spanish activists have staged the world's first ever virtual political demonstration. After months of massive flesh-and-blood protests against the so-called 'gag law', thousands of holograms last night marched in front of the Spanish parliament in Madrid."

143 comments

  1. UK solution by abies · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).

    1. Re:UK solution by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).

      If it passed a pub they'd have lost the other half too

    2. Re:UK solution by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      From experience, that's usually what happens on the way back :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    3. Re:UK solution by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).

      If people can be swayed by a sale tag, then I will gladly laugh in their damn face as to the "protest" being attempted.

      I don't even know why they have to pass gag laws with the sheep being this easily distracted.

    4. Re:UK solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funnily, Oxford Street, despite being a mile long or more, only has one pub on it.

    5. Re:UK solution by Misagon · · Score: 1

      How in the world did the parent to this post get modded "Score:5 Interesting"?

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    6. Re: UK solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't work in Spain: people are broke. Poverty is rising fast and too many people can't afford the basic needs. The country will go the way of Greece - probably worse - together with Portugal. The authorities know that and are acting in advance.

    7. Re: UK solution by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      We are experiencing noticeable recovery. That said, I agree on your statement that "too many people can't afford the basic needs" because to me, any amount of people is too many people when it comes to that.

    8. Re:UK solution by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).

      If people can be swayed by a sale tag, then I will gladly laugh in their damn face as to the "protest" being attempted.

      I don't even know why they have to pass gag laws with the sheep being this easily distracted.

      Fuck you. They all had to take a day's unpaid leave. If, having made their political point, they want to go shopping or get pissed, why the fuck shouldn't they in their own time?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re: UK solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "noticeable recovery" you mean "people don't have to eat excrements to survive" then you might have a point.

    10. Re: UK solution by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      :rolleyes:

  2. Nothing surpricing really. by luvirini · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In too much of the world today other things than humans have more rights.

    This ranges from corporations having many/most of the rights of humans in many countries, while at the same time only having to pay fines for crimes where humans would be put to jail. And ranging to things like the compensation values of different things you do when damaging humans compared to damaging property.

    1. Re: Nothing surpricing really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surpricing?

    2. Re: Nothing surpricing really. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Surpricing: Unexpected news that affects a company's stock value.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 0, Troll

      This ranges from corporations having many/most of the rights of humans in many countries, while at the same time only having to pay fines for crimes where humans would be put to jail.

      I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers. And while legislatures in various countries occasionally disagree, corporations can't commit crimes. The people who make up the corporation commit the crimes.

      At least you recognize that the US isn't the sole country which has done this. That indicates that ignorance need not be permanent.

    4. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Troll

      I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers.

      Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.

      That wasn't the case with the Citizens United ruling. Nor was it the case with the earliest rulings on corporations, which protected them from violations of the Fourth Amendment.

    6. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.

      No, the purpose of those "rights" is to shield the STOCKHOLDERS from legal responsibility.

      If stockholders were held liable for decisions by management, your 401K/IRA/whatever would be pretty empty, since a fine paid by the corporation would then be passed along to the stockholders....

      And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "corporations can't commit crimes"

      Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale? How terribly naive.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.

      No, the purpose of those "rights" is to shield the STOCKHOLDERS from legal responsibility.

      If stockholders were held liable for decisions by management, your 401K/IRA/whatever would be pretty empty, since a fine paid by the corporation would then be passed along to the stockholders....

      And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?

      Why would stock holders be held to account and not the people who made the decisions to, or did commit the act of whatever crime? If that happens and a company goes bust and a stakeholder loses their investment then, that's how it works. Maybe companies would be less inclined to commit crimes and flout the law if it affected their ability to attract and keep investment in themselves.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale?

      It's not a defense, but an observation. Similarly, you can't point to a crime that the abstract entity, "the Mafia" commits, but which isn't actually committed by its constituent members.

    10. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Why would stock holders be held to account and not the people who made the decisions to, or did commit the act of whatever crime?

      Assuming no Limited Liability (you know,the thing that makes corporations corporations), it's pretty well established that the owner of a thing is responsible for the thing - if your dog gets loose and mauls a child, YOU are liable. If your car rolls down the hill into a crowd, you're the one in trouble, not the car...

      Same with being a stockholder - YOU own it, YOU are liable for its problems. Absent "Limited liability", of course.

      Note that the whole "limited liability" thing was invented for that very reason - people weren't willing to invest in things they had no control over, so pre-corporate days, about the largest business you saw was a partnership (two to a few dozen people working together for some purpose (usually making money))....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Assuming no Limited Liability (you know,the thing that makes corporations corporations), it's pretty well established that the owner of a thing is responsible for the thing

      Only within reasonable limits. If you give your car keys to someone and they proceed to run someone down, you will likely be held partially responsible. If you leave your keys in the car, and someone steals it and runs someone down, you may be held partially responsible. If someone hotwires your car and runs someone down with it, that's not your fault.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy stands out as number one. Yes, of course, each individual involved in the conspiracy is also guilty of conspiring to commit that crime, but the Mafia EXISTS to make those conspiracies possible.

      Racketeering, unfair business practices, monopoly - all of these were created especially for businesses.

      While half of America pretends that businesses have some "right to speech" with Citizen's United, it is impossible to pretend that corporations cannot be criminal. Some of them are criminal in their very nature.

      How many banks were discovered to be laundering money, after the Wall Street meltdown? Criminals, every one of them. Criminal enterprises can't be held exempt from the law, just because they were incorporated somewhere.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Astounding this is modded troll, but the GP is modded insightful, when the exact opposite is the case. People commit crimes, not corporations. Throw people in jail. And dragging corporations into a discussion of basic civil rigts shows trollish (and boorish) behavior.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Astounding this is modded troll, but the GP is modded insightful, when the exact opposite is the case.

      No, the modding is appropriate. Being "insightful" doesn't just mean making "obvious" "observations", as khallow claimed to have done.

      "The sky is blue." That's an obvious observation. Doesn't mean it's insightful.

      Both OP and khallow made observations. Some of their observations actually agree and don't contradict each other (i.e that corporations have rights)

      What makes those observations "insightful" is when one puts forth an opinion or an analysis of those observations, or form an idea based on those observations, and others agree with the idea.

      The OP put forth the idea that the observations he saw as (one of) the reason(s) people are so upset and protesting.

      None of the obvious observations made by khallow have anything to say about that idea. Ok, so there's a reason why corporations have rights... so? Doesn't mean people aren't upset over it.

      And khallow didn't bring forth many other ideas, with one notable one being a sneaky insult to the OP's ignorance (and indirectly, an insult to anybody who is upset about corporate personhood). That is probably what triggered a lot of troll mods.

      To put it another way:

      OP: "Here's what I observe, and that's what I think is making people upset"
      khallow: "Here's what I observe, and I think you're ignorant"

    15. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?

      Stockholders MAKE decisions.

      In a corporation, you the head honcho, the chief executive officer. He handles the day-to-day running of the company. He gets his marching orders from the Board of Directors who set the general direction of the company and what they'd like to see the company do. The Directors set the goals for the CEO, who then tries to execute them on the company.

      The board of directors is held responsible for their decisions via the stockholders - who in general set the principles behind how the company operates, but are even further isolated from the day-to-day running of the business.

      You see this happen all the time - when Carl Icahn decides he wants to strongarm a company into doing something. He does it by owning lots of stock. Or as it seems, every Apple quarterly update where some stockholder or another keeps wanting Apple to get rid of all the green initiatives and corporate responsibility they do so they could make more money. (All the green power, supplier responsibility stuff increases Apple's costs). Usually resulting in Tim Cook responding with "if you feel that way, take your money out of Apple and put it elsewhere".

    16. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?

      Well, LONG before we traded stocks on the market so that speculators and people with no direct involvement the company could make money ... in the simpler case this was the owners of companies.

      So four people could start a corporation, each with 25% ownership in the company, but their personal assets would be shielded from liability for company debts. The company could fail, but they wouldn't lose their shirts (or houses).

      The abstract, arms length stockholders is not who corporations were primarily created to protect.

      But somehow along the way these corporate entities which existed for legal liability purposes have become things with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and feelings which we can't hurt.

      Decide on the stupidity of that at your leisure.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy stands out as number one.

      My point exactly. One has to invent imaginary categories of crime in order to convict abstract social structures.

      While half of America pretends that businesses have some "right to speech" with Citizen's United, it is impossible to pretend that corporations cannot be criminal. Some of them are criminal in their very nature.

      Not at all. We can simply observe that corporations can't commit actual crimes.

      How many banks were discovered to be laundering money, after the Wall Street meltdown? Criminals, every one of them. Criminal enterprises can't be held exempt from the law, just because they were incorporated somewhere.

      Banks don't launder money. Bankers launder money.

    18. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      What's the point of introducing new arguments when very old ones crush the complaint in question? The evolution of corporate personhood and the abuses it was meant to protect against are well known history, if you choose to look. I don't care how my comments are modded. I merely care whether those comments are sound and reasonable, or not.

      Similarly, I don't care that people are upset about corporate personhood- though if they want to be upset, they can find a far better quality of problem to be upset about. What I care about is maintaining a society where they can be upset at whatever they want.

      When you take away someone's rights merely because they are unpopular, then that's a serious danger. Even the wealthy should be protected from violation of their rights.

    19. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. When crimes are committed routinely, in the course of business, then that business may be judged as a criminal enterprise. Assets may be seized, and the individuals prosecuted, individually and collectively. Incorporation offers a lot of protection, but incorporation should offer no protections for criminal acts. None.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    20. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      When crimes are committed routinely, in the course of business, then that business may be judged as a criminal enterprise.

      So what? You can make anything real or imagined a crime. But it remains that the people behind the business are carrying out the criminal acts, including that of a "criminal enterprise".

      Assets may be seized, and the individuals prosecuted, individually and collectively.

      They could anyway, unless, of course, no one actually committed a crime.

      Incorporation offers a lot of protection, but incorporation should offer no protections for criminal acts.

      It doesn't.

    21. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      But, you are implying that the corporation can't commit a crime. Then, you insist that this make-believe entity, the corporation, is exempt from prosecution.

      I insist that each individual may be judged, AND that the collective entity, the corporation itself, may also be judged. We see this happen when judges impose fines on corporations - no individual within the corporation pays the fine, but the corporation does.

      If the corporation can be fined, then by extension, it can be found guilty of criminal acts, and appropriately punished. No, you can't put a corporation in prison, but you CAN deprive it of it's resources, disband it, or put it under special restrictions.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      But, you are implying that the corporation can't commit a crime. Then, you insist that this make-believe entity, the corporation, is exempt from prosecution.

      No, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to prosecute a non-sentient thing for a crime that it can't commit. Fantasy crime is just the tip of the iceberg with the problems this approach brings. For example, the idea that property can commit crimes is the basis of the reprehensible civil asset seizure laws that the US has.

    23. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers.

      Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.

      Corporations were created in order to limit their shareholders' liability to their initial investment, and thus encourage trade by removing the risk of a failed business banrupting you completely.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale?

      It's not a defense, but an observation. Similarly, you can't point to a crime that the abstract entity, "the Mafia" commits, but which isn't actually committed by its constituent members.

      But a member of the Mafia (or a company director) isn't just acting on their own behalf. Just because there is no physical person called Mr Mafia or Mr Corporation doesn't mean that the organisation doesn't exist.

      Institutions like the Army or Catholic Church most certainly have an existence beyond their constituent human members.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      But a member of the Mafia (or a company director) isn't just acting on their own behalf. Just because there is no physical person called Mr Mafia or Mr Corporation doesn't mean that the organisation doesn't exist.

      The point here is that the member of the Mafia is acting not the Mafia.

      Institutions like the Army or Catholic Church most certainly have an existence beyond their constituent human members.

      Sure, in that there's knowledge/tradition peculiar to the institution, property owned by the institution, recognition of the institution by outsiders, etc. None of this allows the institutions to act independently of their members and commit crimes independent of their members.

    26. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of introducing new arguments when very old ones crush the complaint in question?

      What's the point of you responding to my post with this when my post had nothing to do with your argument or the complaint?

      The other poster asked about the modding of you and the OP's post. I provided my explanation. For the modding.

      I don't care how my comments are modded.

      Well, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the other poster who questioned why the OP got modded insightful while yours didn't.

      *I* am going to state the obvious here. I never agreed nor disagreed with you or the OP. I was just talking about the modding.

      Calm down.

    27. Re:Nothing surpricing really. by khallow · · Score: 1

      What's the point of you responding to my post with this when my post had nothing to do with your argument or the complaint?

      Uh, you do realize you replied to the "complaint" with why you modded me? That makes your post having everything to do with them and a reason for me to reply.

      Well, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the other poster who questioned why the OP got modded insightful while yours didn't.

      If you didn't want people replying to your posts, then don't post on Slashdot. It's quite simple how it works.

      I don't mind negative mods. I do mind being anonymously insulted by people who don't think. There were two very obvious problems just with the little bit you wrote. And this isn't the first time someone has posted to me in the third person and then claimed they weren't.

  3. Sigh by Trogre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No holograms showed up. This is a pepper's ghost illusion apparently performed with a projector and semitransparent material.

    But I guess "hologram" nets more clicks.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Sigh by philgp · · Score: 1

      Haha, yeah. Just like the "holographic" Liam Neeson in Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds stage show.

    2. Re:Sigh by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, projection onto a semitransparent material is not a pepper's ghost illusion. Pepper's ghost is a reflection onto a 45-degree transparent screen.

      Second, you are confusing implimentation with representation.

      Full coulour video holograms are science fiction. The technology to create them doesn't exist and probably won't within our lifetime. But many representations of hologram individuals are commonly referred to as holograms, and nobody questions or challenges this.

      For example, Arnold Rimmer on Red Dwarf and the EMH Doctor on Star Trek Voyageur are universally accepted as holograms, as is the projection of Princess Leia in Star Wars that was produced by R2-D2. I've never heard any nerd or pedant challenge this. But none of these holograms were made using holography. Rimmer and the EMH were just actors standing on set. Very occasionally they would use visual affects to indicate their hologram-ness. The projection of Princess Leia was also a visual effect. They weren't created using holograms. They represented holograms.

      Likewise, this protest involved representations of holograms, created using non-holographic means (because there is no other way to do it). They are as much holograms as any character that is universally referred to as a hologram.

      If this was a protest involving people waving toy lightsabers around, I don't think many pedants would complain if the media called it a lightsaber protest. You'd sound kind of stupid complaining that they weren't using "real lightsabers". So I don't know why people get so irrationally bent out of shape over representations of holograms.

    3. Re:Sigh by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are actually flat. The Spanish get more exercise than we do.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, Arnold Rimmer on Red Dwarf and the EMH Doctor on Star Trek Voyageur are universally accepted as holograms, as is the projection of Princess Leia in Star Wars that was produced by R2-D2. I've never heard any nerd or pedant challenge this. But none of these holograms were made using holography.

      That's because most people know the difference between fiction and reality.

      Orlando Bloom is not an elf but Legolas is, nor was Lenard Nimoy a vulcan but Spock is.
      Similarly fictional holograms which are in the fiction derived from a form of holography, are not the same thing as the methods used to represent them in TV/Movies.

      Calling a thing that actually happened but did not use any real holograms a "hologram protest" isn't very accurate. Calling a fictional character that is projected vi holography in fiction but played by a human actor on TV "a hologram" is perfectly reasonable.

    5. Re:Sigh by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but I think a representation of a hologram is a representation of a hologram, regardless of whether or not the subject is a fictional character.

      Plus, I can't think of many good alternatives to calling representations of holograms anything but "holograms".

      You could call it a "virtual protest", but "virtual" is a weak and vague term. It's really more suggestive of VR or AR technology.

      "virtual projection" is better than "virtual" on its own, and would work in this case. But it doesn't work for the many well-known hologram effects that are done using Pepper's ghost (like 2pac, MJ, etc), because those are reflections, not projections. It replaces one technically inaccurate term with another.

      "pseudo-hologram" is the best blanket term I can think of.

      Eventually though, in 50 to 100 years, we will have actual video hologram tech. People will then be able to see and understand the difference, and these cheap smoke and mirror tricks will be abandoned, and the problem will go away on its own. :-)

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

      I wondered why the article never mentioned how the fuck the thing 'worked' but only talked about why it was being done. "Oh - wait - if we say how it worked, our headline is fucked."

  4. Spooky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like a legion of ghosts protesting.
    Gets even spookier the more I look at the picture in the article.

    1. Re:Spooky by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Kinda reminds me of when the Titanic came into port in Ghostbusters 2.

    2. Re:Spooky by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      And they were all virtually ignored.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  5. May as well be honest by wrmrxxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Spanish government may as well be honest about the purpose of this law and add quote marks where they belong: "Citizen Safety" Law. I don't know whether to see this protest as a clever stunt (it got our attention after all) or as an admission of defeat. It's all very easy to say from the safety and comfort of my couch, but it does kind of give the appearance that the government has got their way here.

    1. Re:May as well be honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Spanish government may as well be honest about the purpose of this law and add quote marks where they belong: "Citizen Safety" Law.

      See, you're making a common mistake here, which is why you think the quotes are needed. This is not a law providing Safety for Citizens, the common (and mistaken) reading, but one concerned with Safety from Citizens. Whose safety, you ask? why, it's easy, just think about who is threatened by large scale protests in front of Government's buildings.

    2. Re:May as well be honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just think about who is threatened by large scale protests in front of Government's buildings.

      No one at all. A protest is not a riot.

    3. Re:May as well be honest by myrdos2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Check out this nugget: Organisers of unauthorised demonstrations could be fined up to €600,000, with further €600 fines for disrespecting police officers, and €30,000 for filming or photographing them.

    4. Re:May as well be honest by HBI · · Score: 1

      The Soviets are kicking themselves that they didn't think of this.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    5. Re:May as well be honest by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A protest is not a riot.

      It is once the law enforcement agents start battering people with night sticks.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:May as well be honest by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      > The Spanish government may as well be honest about the purpose of this law [...]

      That'd be nice. And plenty other laws too, please. And not only in Spain. Now that'd be some real, significant change.

  6. Surprising news from Spain by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    From the article: "Late last year the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law, which will take effect on July 1

    I thought the Generalissimo was dead? Or are we back to him "valiently holding on in his fight to remain dead"?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Surprising news from Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generalissimo looks like a libertarian when compared to the current spanish government

    2. Re:Surprising news from Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, it's going to be soon like North Korea here (I'm not a spaniard, but I live in Spain, and seriously thinking about emigrating).

    3. Re:Surprising news from Spain by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      In Oregon you can go to jail for storing water that is falling on land that you own:
      http://sevilla.abc.es/sociedad... (article in Spanish).
      Freedom in Spain is a joke, but so it seems to me in the USA and many other places.

  7. The truth is, as always, more complicated... by luismontbau · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Law is restrictive, for sure, but so are the reasons for its existence. Spain is afflicted by both an old-fashioned right and a just-right-of-Stalin left. We have nothing like the social-democrats of Nordic countries. When the left rules, there is absolute peace and nobody protests, no matter how badly the government is mangling the economy and destroying jobs. When the right wins, there are protests within the protests whether they're doing OK or not. And not peaceful, civil protests, no, violent and extremist ones. It's pure 'Agitprop'. The right, then, issued this law to take a powerful tool from the hands of its political enemies, and the left is enraged. Spain remains, sadly, as divided as ever...

    1. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon to be able to mod up against the jerk that modded this down. Pity I cannot comment too without undoing mod points. Spain is also ass-kissing the church, has still a feudalist mentality, and as long they do not kick out the king and the church, they are a fucked up country corrupt to the core and obeying to 3 masters (politicos, priests and king).

    2. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason there are more demonstrations with right wing governments in power anywhere is that the sort of hard left types who demonstrate are usually young , angry and naive. Right wing voters are usually more mature and protest in other ways when a left wing government is in power.

    3. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the left rules, there is absolute peace and nobody protests, no matter how badly the government is mangling the economy and destroying jobs. ...

      Wrong, the 15M movement started on the 15/May/2011, when the "left" PSOE was still in power. The currently ruling PP came only into power after the elections in Nov/2015.

    4. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol older yes, but not more mature. Left wing does also tend to be younger but again that doesn't automatically make them naive. Middle age guy here, so many that is my bias ;)

    5. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You are very wrong, at least in Spain, there are ALWAYS more protests against left governs than against the right wing governs for simple reason, right wings are extremists and they don't care about people so they don't simply give a f*ck about persons and their rights ... spanish right wing protest in masses against women rights to abort and they kill people ... so please, get your facts straight first.

    6. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by queBurro · · Score: 3, Funny

      a man can't serve 3 masters, he must serve only juan

      --
      sag
    7. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may also have something to do with the attempts by the conservative government to remove peoples rights (said law is a good example), including abortion rights. And their economic policy is a mix of insane boondoggles (transporting water from one part of the country to another) and attacks on trade unions.

      That doesn't mean the economy shouldn't reform, but the current proposals are, IMO, pretty one-sided.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    8. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's interesting, since there's an entire new breed of college and university kids that are left-authoritarians and believe that your rights should be restricted in order to protect their feelings from being hurt.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Posting anon to be able to mod up against the jerk that modded this down. Pity I cannot comment too without undoing mod points. Spain is also ass-kissing the church, has still a feudalist mentality, and as long they do not kick out the king and the church, they are a fucked up country corrupt to the core and obeying to 3 masters (politicos, priests and king).

      What does the king has to do with any of this?

    10. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. Wish I had mod points.

    11. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya. they stage revolutions instead, or threaten to.

      also: not more naïve, and not more mature. that's bull.

    12. Re: The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as left authoritarianism. Just like there aren't really militant agnostics.

    13. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually in most countries it is the oposite around. So I really doubt it is the case in Spain.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the parent post was talking about feudalist mentality...a king fit quite well on that topic.

    15. Re: The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as left authoritarianism.

      No true Scotsman, eh?

    16. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      This view is heavily biased to say the least.

    17. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

    18. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by znrt · · Score: 1

      this poster above must be the equivalent of a teabagger. just to put his bullshit in context.

      the spanish "left" has been a minority since franco. there is no real viable "left" alternative as much as there isn't any in the us, where calling democrats "left" would be a big stretch (that would be in spain the official workers party, for which "socialism" is just a funny part of the name, and just equally corrupt as the right.)

      the part about protests is just outright lie. while there's little positive to say about the official spanish "left" (which actually isn't) there is nothing more socially hostile, disrupting and ruthless than the spanish "right" in opposition, on every level. they control the media, the judiciary and most big businesses and know all too well how to use that to good advantage. on the streets, spain has still a very signifficant share of far right extremists, and they are tightly entrenched with the police. most violent actions from these extreme right groups go largely ignored, if not directly supported by the police. anticapitalist or mere social protests, however, are dealt with switly and harshly, with people having got hefty fines or even jail time just for being randomly picked up at or near protests. this recent gag law is just pushing to a extreme what has been an already dire situation for people's rights for years, as has been extensively reported by world oprganizations abroad already. yes, it seems bad things are about to happen, and they know it. i'm guessing they even want them to happen ...

    19. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by znrt · · Score: 1

      to add to this, there is a brand new political force in spain ("podemos", literally "we can") that is expected to overturn both traditional (right/lefty right bipartisanship) pro-stablishment parties. this is an absolute novelty. this new political party does have some "left" ideology although it declares itself neutral (go figure). it's supposedly a grassroots party made up of simple citizen, and there is a very real chance they get to power. main program points are emergency mitigation of social impact of the financial crisis, fighting corruption and reconstruction of presently greatly diminished democracy.

      however, being myself very skeptical about this new party, the real danger to fear if they get to power isn't what they could do, but the predictable reaction of the right (plus probably part of the left) which i expect to be specially ruthless and might even end in a coup d'état or even a bloodbath. spain is essentially a deeply corrupt oligarchy and they will not allow to be displaced so easily. has happened before (see spanish civil war).

    20. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Was that who it was that pushed through the anti-privacy laws, including being able to access our browsing habits from the ISPs with no oversight, to stop bullying?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    21. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Podemos is nothing but an extension of the extreme-left movements in south america (leaded by Venezuela). It has been proven time and time. There are thousands of videos of the leaders of Podemos proving this.
      Besides, people in Spain are starting to mistrust them for this very reason; extreme left has never been a solution, just a new, much larger, much more urgent problem.
      By the way, the spanish civil war happened more than 80 years ago; just.. get over it.

    22. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The reason there are more demonstrations with right wing governments in power anywhere is that the sort of hard left types who demonstrate are usually young , angry and naive. Right wing voters are usually more mature and protest in other ways when a left wing government is in power.

      And for proof of this, all you have to do is look at General Franco's regime, where the mature-but- fun-loving right wingers certainly never demonstrated or used violence in any way. Oh, wait...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You are very wrong, at least in Spain, there are ALWAYS more protests against left governs than against the right wing governs for simple reason, right wings are extremists and they don't care about people so they don't simply give a f*ck about persons and their rights ... spanish right wing protest in masses against women rights to abort and they kill people ... so please, get your facts straight first.

      On slashdot, right wing is good and left wing is bad. If a right wing person murders someone, then they're no true right winger. Oh, and Nazi stands for National Socialist so all left wingers are fascists.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. Any police killed in the crossfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Were any riot police killed by their own crossfire as they attempted to execute the protesters?

    1. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by luismontbau · · Score: 1

      This is not the USA, the police doesn't use nor carry guns to protests... But now that you mention it, let me tell you how it goes here: the center-left protestors march and chant, carry flags and banners, and go about their business without anything more violent than shouts. The extreme-left activists, of which there are always plenty, then proceed to attack the police with Molotov cocktails, rocks, iron bars, destroy and burn everything around their path, there are always tens of policemen hurt every time. Then, the police charge with water cannons, sticks and firing rubber balls. Even tear gas is prohibited by law. So no, the police are not killed by their own fire as there isn't any, the violence always come from the same people, and the response is actually quite meek. Of course, the Agitprop machine then tells it exactly as it wasn't...

    2. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again as anon, not to waste mod points...Either you are a shill, or are naive. The violent protesters either in Spain in portugal are not "extreme-left", they are often planted police man, or people paid by them to stir things a little to justify the attack on the protesters. Here in Portugal, there were proofs about that, and there was a cover up as usual.

    3. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anon, because I forgot my PW: I like to add this little gallery of pictures: Spain, Barcelona 3/5/2012

    4. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      How do you know those are cops in those images? Yellow armbands? Hell, I can have those made up by the thousands. I can just as easily conclude that those yellow arm bands were passed out by the agitators, for the purpose of making the cops look bad.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting again as anon. I meant to write that they are not planted policeman like people think but extreme leftists mixed with radical muslims.

    6. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      I replied to another post by this gentleman to say it was heavily biased to say the least. This one is much worse. Things here are simply not like that. I don't know where this guy lives, but I live in Madrid where most of these demonstrations take place and his description is totally wrong. What is really sad about so much population being extremists (either like this man or the exact opposite end) is that we end up trapped in an endless bi-partisanship situation that hurts the country more than any other problems that we face.

    7. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by znrt · · Score: 1

      Posting again as anon. I meant to write that they are not planted policeman like people think but extreme leftists mixed with radical muslims.

      is that the reason why they are wearing "police" armbands in the picture? idiot.

    8. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by znrt · · Score: 1

      because they are in every big protest, and have been identified many times. because you can spot them wearing headphones and talking to center command. because they have been captured on video throwing stones and inciting riots. because they are routinely identified and exposed by the crowd, and told to get the fuck out of the demonstration, which they promptly do, although not a single one of them has been harmed up to this date in these situations (on one instance however they got scared and had to be rescued by anti-riots, although anybody had touched a single hair of them, just shouts). because the fact is 99% of people in these demonstrations is peaceful and has actually very good reasons to be there.

    9. Re:Any police killed in the crossfire? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Double-yu to the aitch, to the double oh ess aitch. WHOOSH!

      You're completely missing the joke. You can't shoot holograms.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  9. Protecting the Mob by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I look outside my manse window and see the hooligans shouting and pumping their fists into the air, and wonder, what is the benefit of it all? We've already bought the media, we control the message, so what do they think they're going to incite? The age of protest is dead, the age of tribute is begun. The ones who have the gold make the rules, as the richest voices get to shout loudest; of course, we make sure we're on the right side. And if we get to profit a bit from the arrangement, so what?

    The Citizen Safety Law, contrary to its detractors, IS accurately named. The only thing protest is good for nowadays is trashing, looting, and injuries whenever it gets out of hand. Now bereft of purpose, the mob is only able to produce negative effects; this law simply dissipates the chaos before it can cause any harm.

    /satire

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Protecting the Mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good satire sir. Read my comment before. It is quite well known police forces send their own elements, or pay mercenaries to stir things up to justify more violent action and more restrictive laws, and there are non-confirmed rumours that even OTAN is no stranger to place a bomb here and there to keep active the combat and measures against "terrorism".

    2. Re:Protecting the Mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And aliens, don't forget aliens...

  10. slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Politicians respond to anything that seems harder. Why they don't respond to emails so much as letters. You mailed a letter... it is harder then popping off an email.

    So a virtual protester doesn't mean much. Just saying.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point.

      Showing up in person to protest at a government building without explicit permission from the government has been made illegal. Projecting images of protesters is a means of highlighting the fact that those protesters are no longer allowed to be there in person.

    2. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Oh you're not allowed to protest? Well, that's never happened before... and certainly protestors always follow the letter of the law when they're forbidden to protest.

      Seriously... In California we have people show up to protests with handcuffs and gas masks. They put the gasmask on and then handcuff themselves to something.

      It has become so common that police and construction workers make sure to keep a pair of bolt cutters on hand so they can cut the handcuffs off.

      And the really serious protesters sometimes show up with these oil drums that they chain themselves into... and then pour cement into the drums so that you can't get their hands out unless break up the cement... which is dangerous because the jack hammer could damage their hands.

      It causes a big problem. And then you have random acts of vandalism... not projecting some light on a wall... but actually splashing some paint onto said wall that expresses your message whatever that happens to be.

      So yeah... projecting some light on a wall... slacktivism.

      Again, the political authorities tend to take things more seriously that require more effort or guts. This shit is easy and is zero risk. It also involves not a lot of people actually having to show up.

      In washington DC we have marches in the hundreds of thousands over various issues. And most of those are either ignored or go no where. Some light projected on a wall? Utterly ignorable.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the really serious protesters sometimes show up with these oil drums that they chain themselves into... and then pour cement into the drums so that you can't get their hands out unless break up the cement... which is dangerous because the jack hammer could damage their hands.

      My recommendation... get a forklift. Put the barrel on a truck. Drive them off somewhere. Come back in 12 hours and ask if they want any help getting free.

    4. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      If it's so ignorable, why is it getting international news coverage now? The law was passed last year, after all. The goal was to draw public attention to an unfair law and they're accomplishing exactly what they set out to do.

      This has nothing to do with slacktivism. It's a well thought out way of highlighting what's being done to the people's rights in Spain.

    5. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      oh, if it were up to me, I'd just leave them right where they put themselves. They're all trust fund retards so they could pay someone to get them out. But that would mean their daddies would get upset.

      if they just literally died there then I'd let them just decompose on the spot. Nothing would serve as a better example of the price of idiocy.

      But my larger point was that this projecting crap on a wall is not impressing anyone. In china they have dudes that light themselves on fire... and die. In Australia and California they have people that put loaded guns in their mouths and blow the tops of their heads off on the capital steps.

      You want to impress me? You're going to need to try harder than this crap. These guys don't know the meaning of hardcore if they think this is even remotely impressive.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Just because we hear about it doesn't mean anyone else gives a shit about.

      And more to the point, just because someone sees your crap doesn't mean it will have any effect.

      This is something you learn in advertising as well as politics. Just getting a lot of attention is often COMPLETELY worthless. What you want is your objective to happen.

      What is that? if you are an activist for something then you want something to happen. If that thing happens because these guys are doing this... then you got me, I was wrong. If it doesn't... then this failed.

      If you're selling something then you want people to actually BUY it. I get ads all the time for stuff for really old people. Like... life alert etc. I'm not remotely old enough to even begin considering such a product so marketing it to me is a waste of resources.

      Politics works the same way. You have to do targeted lobbying. If some jackoffs in California are vaguely aware of your situation in Spain but don't care then exactly how does that help you? You need to put pressure on YOUR politicians in YOUR country where the ACTUAL issue is happening. My opinion or your opinion on it means DICK. Because neither of us are going to put any pressure on those politicians that are actually controlling the issue.

      This is a curio at best. It appears ineffectual and faddish.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by PPH · · Score: 1

      oh, if it were up to me, I'd just leave them right where they put themselves.

      More often then not, its right in the middle of someone's commute. By making themselves a PITA for everyone, the protesters get attention (often not the right kind).

      The hologram is an interesting way of making a point about the 'no public assembly' law. But since it doesn't slow people down on their way to do business in the government facilities, it won't have much impact in future uses. Besides, it appears to only work at night, when not many people are coming and going.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Oh but I'm immune to that sort of protesting.

      I respond to logic, sound arguments, and evidence. Throwing paint all over the place is infantile. Tying yourself to stuff is infantile. Saying if you won't do what I want I will hurt myself is infantile. Etc.

      Projecting crap on a wall if I don't do what you want is both infantile and very easily ignorable.

      Does this mean that most of the protests that people feel were famous and important mean nothing to me? Yep. Because what mattered was not that you got a lot of people there or what they did but what you had to say.

      THAT is interesting to me. Take Occupy Wallstreet. That they occupied that little square and formed drum circles was a complete waste of time and actually distracted from any real message they might have. What I found interesting was the statement that "hey why are we bailing out banks that fucked up with every one else's money?" That was a sensible discussion to have. But you can't have those when the retards in the square are too busy applauding each other by giving each other jazz hands. They also mutated their issue rather quickly from an issue people give a shit about to "oh and what about feminism, patriarchy, and rape culture?"... which is where everyone just labels them a bunch of crazies and stops listening.

      If you want to a have a dialog. Then do that. If you want to tie yourself to things... I will leave you there until you rot in the sun. Maybe you can bribe a passerby to save you. You could even bribe me. But if don't see some of that trust fund money, then I'm not moving a finger for those idiots. Could they be along my commute? Then I'd move them out of the road on to the nearest side walk. Done. I'd happy leave their skeletons to decay in on the street otherwise as a warning to future morons to not make it so inconvenient to remove them that they can't get themselves out if needed. If you want to hand cuff yourself to something, keep the key in your pocket and when people are just ignoring you... you can let yourself out.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I respond to logic, sound arguments, and evidence.

      Not sure who you think you are describing, but your comment history shows those characteristics are not accurate descriptions of you.
       
       

      Throwing paint all over the place is infantile. Tying yourself to stuff is infantile. Saying if you won't do what I want I will hurt myself is infantile. Etc.

      Calling people names, telling them to kill themselves, and making silly comments about them instead of responding to their arguments is infantile.

    10. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Oh look, my AC shadow found me in another topic where he wants to whine about getting serial raped in topic after topic.

      *steeples hands*... Tell me you have something useful to add to the discussion besides reminding me that you're still bitter about losing over and over again.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      losing

      that word ... you use it, but it does not mean what you think it to mean.

    12. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes, even the art of demonstrating is bigger and better in the US.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So, to answer my question... No... you don't have anything to offer besides reminding me how bitter you remain about getting stomped every time I lay eyes on you.

      Thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep checking in case you decide to actually be worth something. :)

      Who knows... one day you might not be a douchebag.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go that far... I'm sure there are some protesters in other parts of the world that aren't complete jokes... including people in Spain. Just THOSE people with their projector are pointless.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you? not becoming informed? that seems too high of a hurdle to clear, based on the absence of facts and reality in your comments. keep dreaming, son.
       
      some free advice for you - calling people names only shows how angry you are at their argument deflating your own. you won't convince anyone that you are knowledgeable when you take that tactic.

    16. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You forgot the bit where I showed you that Issac Newton was a dick to people on a fairly regular basis... and he was one of the greatest minds in human history.

      This was already explained to you. And yet you're using the same argument again despite the fact that you have been given evidence that one can be quite intelligent and educated and sophisticated... and yet utterly contemptuous of morons.

      *bounces a frozen pea off the AC thick shiny skull*

      You're a moron and you are right that I don't respect you... mostly because you're an idiot. You're also dishonest and cowardly. I mean, I'm struggling to think of a redeeming quality you have... *thinks about it*... no... nothing. You are a waste of oxygen. Unfortunate for the biosphere.

      Can I suggest you taught large animals? Maybe one of them will eat you... circle of life and all that. Or maybe you'd like to take up a hobby of wild mushroom eating? I'm sure there are some delicious wild mushrooms out there. Try them all. Especially the red ones with white spots. If I remember my super mario brothers, that gives you an extra life... and you could use one of those. :P

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what does this have to do with Newton? i didn't say anything about Newton. are you injecting him into this as an excuse to be a dick to people? if so, get back to us when you invent calculus.

      really, if you want to be a dick to people, that is your problem. it only makes your 'argument' look that much worse though, when you can't handle criticism of the side you represent without resorting to insults.

    18. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      if I've confused you with another AC, can you blame me?... price of hiding even your fake name, bro.

      Log the fuck in and maybe I'd keep you fucks straight.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    19. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is not the problem of the ac that you fly off the handle so easily. get some help, "bro". you make yourself look ridiculous when you so quickly resort to that kind of juvenile language. if you had a point to make before, you've already ditched it in favor of insulting ... who exactly?

    20. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      whatever, dude... I've been getting trolled by the same AC for about two or three weeks. The guy literally follows me around to trash talk. And I see your post, you're an AC, and I see the same bullshit coming out of you... and I assume you're the same douchebag.

      Don't log in as AC if you don't want to be confused with other douchebag ACs.

      End of discussion.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    21. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you seem to be taking yourself a bit too seriously if you are so certain that all the ac comments are coming from one guy. your shiny personality - particularly how quickly you reduce yourself to insults - doesn't exactly make you look like a mature and level-headed individual here.

    22. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Dude... do you want to read literally 200 posts from the same AC that sounded almost exactly like you just did there?

      Because that is the shit I have been subjected to lately.

      If you don't like being confused with other shithead ACs, then log the fuck in.

      No apologies. No remorse.

      Login or accept that this will happen to you on occasion. This is YOUR problem. I am dealing with idiots that respond to me as best as anyone could possibly do so. You have anonymized yourself to such an extent that you are indistinguishable from the trolls. So guess what... you're going to take some flak.

      https://youtu.be/E7-ILz0YOVE?t...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    23. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't seem to understand how this site works, son. if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to use it. perhaps you should try reddit instead? although with your level of anger, 4chan might be a better choice.

    24. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how the site works? You're the one complaining, shit for brains. Not me.

      Maybe YOU don't understand how it works.

      I'm not the one with a problem. YOU are. And as you can see, I don't care.

      Suck it up or keep whining. Either way... I don't care.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    25. Re:slacktivism 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you actually one of the acs that are replying to your angry messages? what you just wrote makes more sense in response to your rage than in support of it. in fact, none of what you just wrote is supported by anything you have ever written here.

  11. Fuck you, clickbaiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hate summaries that conspicuously omit the only thing that's really important in the whole article.

    That makes it deliberate clickbait and means slashdot would rather slide down the hole than be useful.

    1. Re:Fuck you, clickbaiter by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really hate summaries that conspicuously omit the only thing that's really important in the whole article.

      I hate comments that say that something is "really important" but don't explain what it is.

      So, which "really important" thing in the article is missing from the summary?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Fuck you, clickbaiter by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I really hate summaries that conspicuously omit the only thing that's really important in the whole article.

      I hate comments that say that something is "really important" but don't explain what it is.

      So, which "really important" thing in the article is missing from the summary?

      The technology behind this hologram.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  12. The revolution... by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

    ...will not be tweeted.

  13. I'm sure this will virtually scare the government. by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    EOM.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  14. Meanwhile... by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, All officials were at home laughing their asses off.

    1. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.”

      - 1984

  15. Drat, their dastardly scheme was foiled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!

  16. We've lost. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    The 20th century has been repealed. It's over. Back to kings, merchant princes, and ghostly immortal power structures.
    Kind of glad I'll be dead soon.

  17. Headline is false by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    No holograms showed up. This is a pepper's ghost illusion apparently performed with a projector and semitransparent material.

    Exactly. This is fake news. Holograms that can can be projected into and move through empty air do not exist except in science fiction. This "march" did not happen.

    I read a lot of science fiction, but I do like to actually distinguish what is real and what is Star Trek.

    How did this show up on slashdot, a site for self-proclaimed nerds, which is to say, people who actually care about real technology?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  18. Holograms protesting by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    SWAT: "Computer, end program."

  19. Holograms? by Squatting_Dog · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised the equipment is not removed by the authorities. They won't let you assemble in person, but, they will let someone setup and run equipment for projecting 'holograms' on the premises? I'm surprised!

    In my opinion, this looks like a great novel approach to giving people a way of making themselves 'heard' if you will without all of the problems usually associated with a large gathering of indignant/angry people.

    It will be interesting to see if this becomes more widespread

    Kudos to the "Holograms for Freedom" organisation for creating such a unique platform for expression.

  20. But...but...! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law"

    If anyone wonders why the Founding Fathers wrote in absolutist terms in the First Amendment, this is why.

    They knew charismatic demagoguery and outright sophistry were easy tools to use to override rights.

    "Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:But...but...! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      Well it's not difficult for a government to turn a peaceful demonstration into a violent one, all you need to do is get the police to attack with batons and break a few limbs and you'll generally get a response. And you can then declare a riot and martial law.

      I do sometimes wonder at the naivety of Americans who think that the Constitution in itself can prevent fascism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  21. Gov't response: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Due to your antics, you will all be fired and replaced with a hologram."

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  22. [Oblig.] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Please state the nature of the protest."

  23. what you wrote is not even remotely true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - protests in spain are to 99% peaceful with few exceptions from a few extremists, but there has been no violent protests like we have seen in greece, france and even germany. the difference is that when the left rules the protests are tolerated (15M) while when the right rules (even when protesting for the very same reasons!) innocent people protesting peacefully get beaten up.

    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_15-M

    - when the left wing was in power there were protests from right wing people, opposing for example same sex marriage (when the law was passed), abortion, VAT rise, etc

    http://www.infolibre.es/noticias/politica/2014/11/21/cuando_iba_detras_las_pancartas_24284_1012.html

    now your comment may look interesting and rational to the uninformed, but for those that know the situation of spain it's obvious that what you said is simply not true. and unlike you, i can provide as many sources as needed.. also, the current division in spain is not between left and right, but between the traditional, corrupt left and right parties and the ones that think every political party, left and right, sucks and they are all the same dog with different collar

  24. holograms? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    so now plain old 2d video projections are called holograms? it's bad enough that we have to refer to radio control toys as robots and drones.

  25. They will get an equally substantive response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta love the "Gen-Y"ers and Millenials; they've been raised on tablets and smart phones with twitter and instagram etc and can be seen walking along looking down at their screens and poking-text messages into the touch screens. They seem to think that living in a social media site is LIVING, and expressions are equivalent to actions. This will rebound at them eventually.

    Can't be bothered to show up for an ACTUAL protest? Just TWEET, or do an IMAGE of a protest.... of course, at some point there will be government officials of these generations who will decide that, in place of actual government policies that have REAL effects, TWEETS and IMAGES of government policies will do (the Obama administration has been alpha-testing this, with White House petitions and twitter feeds)