Slashdot Mirror
Why Free Software Evangelist Richard Stallman is Haunted by Stalin's Dream (factordaily.com)
Richard Stallman recently visited Mandya, a small town about 60 miles from Bengaluru, India, to give a talk. On the sidelines, Indian news outlet FactorDaily caught up with Stallman for an interview. In the wide-ranging interview, Stallman talked about companies that spy on users, popular Android apps, media streaming and transportation apps, smart devices, DRM, software backdoors, subscription software, and Apple and censorship. An excerpt from the interview: If you are carrying a mobile phone, it is always tracking your movements and it could have been modified to listen to the conversations around you. I call this product Stalin's dream. What would Stalin have wanted to hand out to every inhabitant of the former Soviet Union? Something to track that person's movements and listen to the person's conservations. Fortunately, Stalin could not do it because the technology didn't exist. Unfortunately for us, now it does exist and most people have been pressured or lured into carrying around such a Stalin's dream device, but not me.
I am suspicious of new digital technology. I expect it to have new malicious functionalities. It has happened so many times that I have learned to expect this, so I have always checked before I start using some new digital technology. I asked to find out what is nasty about it and I found out these two things. It was something like 20 years ago, and I decided it was my duty as a citizen to refuse, regardless of whatever convenience it might offer me. To surrender my freedom in this way was failing to defend a free society. This is why I do not have a portable phone. I refuse to carry a portable phone. I never have one and unless things change, I never will. I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me. Practically speaking, it is not that hard.
I am suspicious of new digital technology. I expect it to have new malicious functionalities. It has happened so many times that I have learned to expect this, so I have always checked before I start using some new digital technology. I asked to find out what is nasty about it and I found out these two things. It was something like 20 years ago, and I decided it was my duty as a citizen to refuse, regardless of whatever convenience it might offer me. To surrender my freedom in this way was failing to defend a free society. This is why I do not have a portable phone. I refuse to carry a portable phone. I never have one and unless things change, I never will. I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me. Practically speaking, it is not that hard.
That works because everyone else is carrying Stalin's dream.
If nobody did, it'd be like the times before everyone had a cell phone. Life was quite tolerable then too.
Why doesn't he just use a phone case that is a faraday cage with sound proofing and only take it out when he needed it?
Surely someone invented small faraday cage phone cases by now. Or else just use a ton of aluminum foil and test call it.
" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me."
This man is living a true hippie's dream
Leftist is a term used by people who have run out of arguments. And probably thoughts.
There are no leftists in America that want Stalin's Dream. The people running tech companies are hard core Libertarians who would run over their own dogs if that dog was getting in between them and their stock options.
That's Capitalism, sport, nothing leftist about it. Tech wants to spy on you and sell your information. There is nothing liberal about that.
Find a new word, "leftist" fails as an insult because it is meaningless to everyone outside of the Glenn Beck/Alex Jones/Q-Anon crowd.
The people who are important enough that they'd need a call phone have a secretary anyway. For the rest of us, cell phones are money sinks and toys.
I buy and sell very expensive things like cars, boats, and houses. We're talking six and seven figure stuff here, not stuff the average person can afford.
I need my customers to be able to reach me quickly and easily, so I can sell them whatever it is they want as quickly as possible before they change their mind.
This doesn't make me "important", but it does illustrate that your notion of who "needs" a cell phone is not accurate. A cell phone is absolutely essential for my business, and I do not want or need a secretary or any other intermediary. The people with whom I deal are smart, they are used to getting excellent service, and their expectations relative to service are extremely high ( with good reason : when you're throwing millions of dollars or Euros around, it puts you in a different class, to be frank ).
Like most leftists, he's fine with using Stalin's Dream as long as it's invading your life and not his
Bullshit.
He's saying quite clearly no one who cares about their freedom and/or privacy should carry around one of these devices. He's right.
He's also (indirectly implying or saying) that most people choose convenience over freedom. He's right about that too.
Finally, he's making the point to those who might care _almost_ as much about their freedom as convenience that, as long as there are so many people willing to trade their freedom for convenience, those who care about such things can piggy-back off of them to get almost the same level of convenience without compromising their location 24/7/365.25. He's right about that as well.
He is not saying "Freedom for me, not for you" he's merely mentioning a useful workaround that he probably himself hopes will become untenable someday (because everyone "sees the light" and stops carrying surveillance devices around). He's also implicitly acknowledging that that is most likely a pipe-dream, and he's right about that most of all.
But nice try on the right-wing anti-leftist spin against a guy who had the audacity to share his source code with the world, and write a license to help others do the same. I'm sure Putin likes you very much.
It's interesting -- I remember the first time I read Utopia (probably in high school?), my objection was that Moore's premise of living a perfect life in a perfect society relied on letting somebody else fight all the wars.
I respect Stallman and I'm glad he's out there, but I smell a whiff of that here: it's "not that hard" for him to live without the convenience of a cell phone because he's able to assume someone else will be.
" I call this product Stalin's dream. "
Without the location data, Google Maps and others would be unable to lead you around the other morons in traffic.
It allows us to see at which times a restaurant, a Pool or other facilities are used by less people.
I don't want to miss that.
Yes, quick, we must all immediately cancel our cellphone plans in order to stop this communist freeloader from making free phone calls! How did he trick us into this?! GAAAAAA! /sarcasm
There. Do you see how you sound?
This. These people aren't spying because of their party. They are spying because it pays them billions to.
It's strange that he doesn't just carry a pre-paid phone with the battery taken out. I don't carry a cell phone either but, I keep a pre-paid one in my car (or sometimes laptop bag if I'm traveling) with the battery taken out. No tracking, no listening and I basically get a portable pay phone that doesn't need quarters to operate.
Is there an app that can screw with the data?
eg. Make your location jump around randomly all over the world when you're not actually using mapping to get directions.
Encrypted communications can be made very convenient using this tech, he should be for that.
The answer isn't to not own a phone, it's to use the phone against the data spies. Use it to take back your freedom.
No sig today...
Like most conservatives, you'd rather government not get in the way of private enterprise's ability to spy on American citizens and sell it for a profit. After all, Profit > People for Republicans.
The funny thing is that the US police state has its roots in the post-WWII anti-Soviet CIA, and these witch hunts spread for decades, being wildly accelerated by both Bushes and Obama. The past several decades have seen a drastic increase in media conglomeration to be owned by a few wealthy individuals while they push the facets of socialism to the unwashed masses (as we see on this site, thanks, BizX) to create a nation of dependents. What was there is now here.
Welcome to Soviet America.
Land of the fee and home of the slave.
stubborn and anti-social without benefit
That's our rms to a T. /s on the "without benefit". ?
Well
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"hard core Libertarians"??? Seriously?
Have you followed the policies of most of the people? They are anything but libertarian! They are statists through and through and advocate control of everyone else (except themselves and their friends). They are advocating policies of "you work, I eat" - the same ones that the Democrat slave owners of the old south advocated - but they are using flowery language like "Democrat socialism" to attempt to hide it from people who are not paying attention. Socialism is an evil and immoral philosophy that advocates treating human beings as chattel, just as Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler etc all did. Authoritarianism at root.
I met Stallman in grad school in the late 1980s and I do admire his coding and his beliefs regarding free software, but he doesn't have the sense of irony that he is castigating Stalinist policies while embracing a large portion of them.
Quite some time ago, I read an article about this sort of thing...how he travels for talks and such. To paraphrase what I remember, he doesnâ(TM)t book the flight, the host does that for him. The host also books the accommodations and arranges transportation. He just asks for a little spending money for meals (cash, no credit card). He wonâ(TM)t use a credit card, or pay expenses and submit a reimbursement request. Basically her said that, if at any time he is asked for a credit card (like checking in to the hotel) then the host of the talk didnâ(TM)t do their job correctly.
In exchange for all that, he doesnâ(TM)t charge a speaking fee.
Now, this was some time ago so I may not have the details correct, but you should get the gist of the story: he wonâ(TM)t do anything that could have the potential (real or perceived) breach of his privacy and personal information.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Like most leftists, he's fine with using Stalin's Dream as long as it's invading your life and not his
If he was fine with Stalin's Dream as long as it is invading our lives and not his, he wouldn't be making public statements about it. There ARE security concerns with mobile devices, there's no denying that Google, the phone companies, and the carriers are using our data for their own purposes. Wasn't it only last week that it was revealed that all of the major telecommunications carriers in the US were selling location data on their subscribers without any notification to those subscribers or consent? Apple is claiming to better protect user privacy, but do they really? Calling this leftist is relying on a single-axis political scale, this is closer to the two-axis scale libertarians like to use between libertarian and statist, there are those on both the right and left that incline towards more statist beliefs (not that this scale is perfect, it doesn't really account for corporatists or oligarchies).
What part of "From each according to his ability" makes you think the socialist motto gives you anything for free?
Oh, nevermind... you're one of those idiots who thinks that people would willingly choose to be jobless and destitute so that they can get those free food stamps that will barely cover the cost of ramen for 3 meals a day.
I'd consider it worse if he were militant about his ideology and wanted to ban anyone else from freely choosing those decisions for themselves. As long as consumers are properly informed and capable of providing consent, I don't believe that it's any of my business to interfere with their choices.
I consider smoking tobacco to be stupid for a variety of reasons and do not and will not do it myself, but I'm not going to prohibit anyone else from making up their own mind. Can it be said that I can get the benefits of having other people smoke (someone having a lighter handy I suppose) without the drawbacks?
That's all in your head. Paraphrasing someone's words as gibberish isn't an argument, it's a strawman fallacy.
Maybe the OP was being sarcastic too.
What I'm really reading here is someone who has the resources to organize and offer an alternative to Stalin's Dream but isn't. I understand and agree with his misgivings but I disagree with his choice to take no action.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So he won't carry a phone but he thinks it's OK to use someone else's? Fuck him.
Liberal means 'pro liberty', more or less, the opposite of (leftist/marxist/socialist/progressive/American 'liberal').
Liberal means holding a broad worldview and being open to new ideas. It's not about liberty, per se. And that means having your eyes wide open and caring about the freedoms and rights of people other than yourself and not just your own interests.
> So RMS won't carry a cell phone himself, but he will borrow someone else's, placing a call or a text to people he knows. Which would then be traceable back to a location. That doesn't make sense.
It's called being a hypocrite.
All he has done is defer the problem.
He's fine with someone else trading their freedoms when it's convenient for HIM but when it comes to him trading his freedom it's now inconvenient. That's a REAL nice double standard you got there.
Standing for your principles doesn't let you off the hook with people who don't share them.
Analogy of Stallman's "Logic":
I don't murder people so I'll hire this hit man to do it for me.
HUH!?!?
Either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. He is still part of the problem -- regardless of how he justifies it.
Why do you want to write something like this? It's like proudly having a text saying "I'm ignorant" on ones forehead.
Liberal means 'pro liberty', more or less,
Not in the USA it doesn't.
In the USA it means "somebody who wouldn't want to live in Texas".
No sig today...
Well, forced freedom isn't true freedom. Tivoization is a hardware issue, you still have the source code to compile your liberated version of software and use it on your liberated device. It's your freedom to lock down the binary and sell it with the hardware. The software doesn't become less free of this.
I'm not getting what's Stalin specific here. s/Stalin/Truman/ and what's the difference? Imagine McCarthy's with current technology.
Nope. If you want to be able to receive phone calls, then the phone network has to know approximately where you are at all times. GPS tracking is a secondary, independent feature. Even if you could make an app that would spoof your GPS location in such a way that even the (presumed compromised) operating system was fooled (good luck with that...), all it takes is a trivial cross-check with network data to realize that fact and fall back to the "accurate to within a few dozen/hundred meters" network tracking.
And of course it does nothing whatsoever to prevent the use of the microphone as a remote listening device.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Socialism is an evil and immoral philosophy that advocates treating human beings as chattel
No, it is not. Look up the definition: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.". Just like any political ideology it only becomes immoral if it is taken to extremes but that is just as true of capitalism as well.
Like most things in life generally what works best is a balance. The community needs to provide some regulation on production, distribution and exchange to provide protection for its weakest members but, at the same time, not too much regulation otherwise it stifles and prevents the innovation and entrepreneurship that we all rely on to make our lives better. I'm not a fan of socialism because its proponents tend to take it, in my opinion, far too far towards the regulation/control side of things. However, it is by no means an "evil and immoral philosophy" nor does it advocate "treating human beings as chattel". You are thinking about communism which is not at all the same thing.
And to add to the other AC's comment - if you're blocking the transmission of signals, then you're also blocking their reception, and can't receive phone calls. Which defeats on of the major reasons for carrying a phone with you.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Absolutely - just like forcing people to give up their money for free in exchange for food is totally Stalinist.
If you don't like the price I charge for my code (GPL compliance) then don't use it, or try to convince me to sell it to you under other terms. It's as simple as that. Or do you think you are entitled to steal my code and give me nothing in return?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This. These people aren't spying because of their party. They are spying because it pays them billions to.
...unless we're in China.
This is not an argument for either "side" per se, but rather a note of comparison:
In generally free societies, you get spied on for profit (if they can), and little-to-nothing more. The worst they do with your data to is sell what they learn about you to advertisers, who them toss up ads that hopefully get past ad-blockers and try to entice you out of some of your money.
Now let's contrast that with a totalitarian-oriented society, where that data, coupled with omnipresent external cameras, facial recognition, a bit of AI to back it up, and a government-owned/run social credit rating that can either make your life easier (if you're a 'model citizen'), or infinitely harder (if you don't sufficiently conform)?
Now - which of the two do you figure to be the most dangerous to individual life and liberty?
To be honest, I don't much mind carrying a smartphone in the US (half the time I'm out of any cell range anyway, given my rural locale). By contrast, I'd be scared shitless to carry one around if I were a citizen and resident of, say, Shanghai.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No. It means individual freedom, but for everyone rather than the elite.
like a small Faraday cage
Libertarians are the classical liberals. American 'liberals' are socialist authoritarians.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If that were the deal, it would be a bad one. But it's not - you chose to give up your privacy and security for your own personal convenience. You could easily choose otherwise, just as he did. Now, if enough people chose that route then borrowing someone else's phone would stop being viable, and there might be a market for phones you could easily and confidently turn off. But that's a world that doesn't currently exist.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Do you think that advertisers are the only ones who want your data and are willing to pay for it? I can imagine far worse than that.
He's fighting the war harder than just about anyone, just on a different front.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He's a well-known tech guy. He (and we) should be able to get someone to rig up a physical switch to make/break the battery contact connection, right? All the privacy/security people complain about this, but it seems like this would be a simple thing to agitate for.
/whoosh
If was serious about his principles he wouldn't be using ANY mobile phone: his OR others.
He's compromising his principles by leeching off of the very system he is complaining about. See the problem now?
> It's not like he can bloody prevent people from owning/using cellphones, is it?
He doesn't have. (It wouldn't work anyways.) Cell phones are here to stay -- for better or for worse.
You have to pick and choose your battles. He is SO focused on one TINY little insignificant battle that he is missing the entire war.
Either he should get his _own_ burner phone OR stop using OTHER people's -- because _either_ way he isn't stopping the problem.
If landlines and payphones have disappeared then he needs to ask himself a question:
At what point do you realize that your dogma of ideology is ignoring practicality?
ANY ideology taken to an extreme is never a good idea. EVERY technology is ALWAYS about a compromise of ideology. Stallman doesn't understand that.
Put the battery in and make a call every 2 months or so, or your sim will deactivate.
Most places have this rule. Phone numbers are finite and cost money to keep. If you're not spending the money then you won't be keeping that sim active, so it'll deactivate and you'll likely lose the number (and use of phone until you pay again. *even* on contract sims will deactivate, and you'll keep on paying for nothing)
Sure is easy to do without cellphones/vaccines/etc. when everyone else around me is paying the cost in privacy and cash/very small chance of reaction/etc. I'm a genius and not a freeloader/freeloader/freeloader on society.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go help an old person on Medicare and SS write a post on their subsidized phone about how they are tired of all the welfare queens.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
and Stallman's pretty obsessed with not being tracked. I don't think he likes others being tracked either, but given that cell phones have killed payphones (I even stopped seeing them in the really poor neighborhoods where I work) there are just times when you can't get away from it.
Me? I don't care so much for tracking. I'm more worried about economic attacks on me and mine, e.g. things like cutting my access to medical care, education, my wages, etc. Take care of those things and the tracking problems solve themselves.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
........
You can carry a phone just to signal out, not to be 'on-call'. I rarely ever receive phone calls.
Good-bye
Both political leaning parties have their subset of crazies, who takes the polices too far.
When is it too far? Well, I would like to define it when people are getting hurt or suffering, because they don't fit nicely in the party lines, or because they reject an idea that isn't backed by the party.
Communist governments, have done this basically by persecuting the people who couldn't fit well in such a society. These subversives are often people whos lot in life doesn't jive with what the government says they should be doing. Just by persecuting and pointing out these people as subversives, they are restricted on what goods and services they can access, and indeed suffer from it.
Capitalist governments, can be just as bad too, if you don't have the money to live, you are deemed lazy and unfit to survive in society, asked to get a job or just die.
Moderate groups are not the answer, because a moderate group will often just be some combination of both, but their views can be so strict that harm can happen as well.
In general if you feel you need to harm someone physically, socially or emotionally because they don't agree with your political views, then there is something wrong with you, which you may want to reflect on.
RMS I don't agree with, I find his views too strict for me. But he is relatively harmless, and his views often do have a point which we should listen too, I just feel his solutions are impractical on a large scale.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's amazing that people still think guys like Hitler and Stalin were socialists.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Our loss of privacy was handed away gleefully, as if we were kids given candy.
Since early on, I advocated that whatever the level of transparency, it should be mutual. If government can read my conversations then I should be able to read theirs, as it pertains to mine. The same for commercial organizations. Of course, some level should be set. I mean regardless, I don't want them watching me poop. But then again, if it's my doctor and I can see that my doctor is doing this to monitor my health then I could be leanient even on that. So it's not a trade between privacy and security -- it's a balance of mutual privacy that we need.
On the other hand, I think the issues of fake information, information overload, and relationship destroying social media comments are all bigger issues.
Sounds like the worst carnival ride *ever*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And how many of the calls you make are to other people's cell phones?
You do make a legitimate argument from a personal perspective - assuming you would be okay with *never* receiving calls, but most people seem to consider being available to their loved ones, at least in an "emergency", to be one of the most important reasons to own a cell phone.
And really, a phone only does two things: it lets you make calls, and it lets you receive them. Everything else is the PDA the phone is built into. If it can't do one of those two things, it's hard to argue that it hasn't suffered a major loss in functionality.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
anarcho communism.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's not a problem to NOT borrow use of somebody's phone. Some of us are old enough to have lived during a time when everybody didn't have a phone or internet.
The world functioned so well it was able to invent all the stuff you use today so you can "innovate" your silly stuff on top of that along with the help from us old timers.
He loses none of his rights if he uses your cell because you already gave up your rights. There is no hypocrisy here. He can do just fine without it and he can deal unlike everybody else.
This guy is more consistent than MOST people which is what gets him labeled as extreme all the time. We get people attacking him for being extremely consistent and idealistic beyond what they consider reasonable-- labeling him unreasonable-- and also attacking him for not being so extreme he can't even borrow use of a phone on rare occasion.... keep in mind that a PUBLIC SHARED PHONE is dead because of everybody else... the more you share your phone the less revealing it is about you, like a public phone was.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
What is really crazy is that there are groups of people in the US whose sole purpose is to police speech and make sure that other people both say unoffensive correct things and rally groups of supporters to target those who do not.
In other words, Twitter users...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Libertarians are Republicans without religion. Same pro-corporate worldview.
Nobody's claiming it's free - rather they're claiming it's Free, as in "you can't lock up this software"
If you want free code that you *can* lock up inside your own proprietary product, then by all means restrict yourself to using BSD or any other "glorified public domain" license. It's a really simple distinction, and only an idiot would claim confusion.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You must open a book or two. Liberal means for Liberty, specially individual liberties, like how the state/King can't impede on some Liberties.
I don't want some fat weirdo using my phone, I would tell him to get his own phone.
Luckily America would never have things like no-fly lists, border searches all over the country, millions of people imprisoned or political crimes such as possessing a prohibited plant.
It would also never have internal intelligence agencies or police forces that are very military in nature and tools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Liberal means 'pro liberty', more or less, the opposite of (leftist/marxist/socialist/progressive/American 'liberal').
Liberal means holding a broad worldview and being open to new ideas. It's not about liberty, per se. And that means having your eyes wide open and caring about the freedoms and rights of people other than yourself and not just your own interests.
A classic liberal would have laughed at safe spaces and abhorred PC speech codes. What is called a liberal, or a progressive if you want to be more trendy, in the US currently though thinks both are great improvements and enforces them.
...After all, Profit > People for Republicans.
Don't get too smug. Open borders == death to working class, but it's OK since new immigrants tend to vote Democrat. Power > Citizens for Democrats. I do wish that there was a part for the working class in the US.
I suspect the phone doesn't even need to transmit 'telemetry data' per se. One probably can do triangulation at the tower, and phones are constantly chirping.
The best answer might be satellite phones.
They both pushed right wing societal values such as attacking and even killing homosexuals, certain races and such, as well as governance by those with merit . At that when Stalin took charge, a lot of what is usually considered leftist in America was prosecuted. He even believed in capitalism, as long as the government was the capitalist running industry. Like most successful capitalists, he did hate the free market, as that means competition.
Neither one believed in the people and especially having the regular people involved in governance through democracy and neither made any moves in the direction of communism, which has as one of its basic tenants to not have government.
People are complex and can not be simply divided up into the right wing and left wing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
There are no leftists in America that want Stalin's Dream.
More to the point, the US left's interest in technology does not go beyond ranting on Twitter. There are no Elon Musks among the Stalinists, people who would be actually able to tap our cellphones and use our speech against us if they wanted to.
Do you think that advertisers are the only ones who want your data and are willing to pay for it? I can imagine far worse than that.
Actually yes, I do think that only advertisers want my personal data. Your speech must be so much more important than mine. I genuflect in your august presence.
So when you see a medication that says to apply liberally, you do it for freedom? No, liberal means broad and wide-ranging. As in, not narrow(-minded). Good for you that you found it shares a Latin root, but they are still separate words with separate meanings.
Libertarian was originally a socialist construct. Look up socialist libertarian or libertarian socialist.
Here, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=soci... or https://duckduckgo.com/?q=libe....
Now it is just as impractical as any political philosophy that ignores the authoritarians, but still to claim that libertarian-ism is a right wing thing is weird as the right means by definition supporting the aristocracy, or today, the rich
From wiki,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production
In practice, this usually means something pro-corporate or anti-environment. Tell me how that does not disproportionately benefit the elite.
What straw man thing is it that you think a safe space is? I guarantee you're probably wrong.
Also, are you using the word classic as shorthand for ignorant deep-South?
How so? How do open borders = death to the working class? Our most productive time in American history saw a large amount of immigration. The minimum wage ensures legal citizens are paid at least at the same starting point. Oh, you must mean those illegals, right? Hmm...and I wonder how they're getting jobs that place them below the federally mandated minimum wage? Oh, that's right, corporations. See an illegal in America doesn't work a job unless a company hires him to begin with. So the real death of the working class isn't Jose from Mexico, it's Bob the CEO from Fuck You, USA who is saying "I'm going to break the law and hire this person and pay them under the table at a severely reduced wage, because fuck America." Perhaps instead of a wall, we need mandatory background checks and employer new-hire reporting and auditing.
Kinda like he the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo are both democratic republics, right?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You health insurers, your employers, and everyone who wants your money, your labor, or your vote, without necessarily having anything else to offer. Basically, everyone. Not everyone can afford it, yet.
Are we at the point where you will get charged an extra 10% because you have shown enthusiasm for a product, or paid a bad price before, or live in a wealthy area?
Are we at the point where your dentist will use your posts to see how much discomfort you are in, so that he can inflate the treatment?
Are you going to get a bad life insurance because you enjoy jetskying?
Are your kids going to have trouble getting into a specific talent school because they got into a fight when they were 10?
Is your coworker going to forward to your boss a statement you made on the clock, or a statement about some quality the boss has, or just something random the boss may dislike?
Is your work/school laptop/phone configured to spy on you on demand, and is the security going to be porous enough to let everyone and his grandmother join in?
Etc, etc, etc.
Most of the above has happened. The rest will, soon enough.
And that's without errors. With errors, your wife name will match that on a known (male!) terrorist, and you will spend three ours in a detention room abroad, or your house will match the location of a stolen item, you will be placed at the scene of a crime in the next state, and what not. Bounty hunters have already broken into the wrong person's house...
All of these can happen without the technology we accept into our houses and pockets. But with the technology, every idiot can get on the game. And with enough monkeys on the branch, any branch will break.
No good deed goes unpunished...
With an OS level GUI dropping down over any attempts to read the news on a website.
Soft power off on a cell phone that keeps tracking the user.
Battery power that stays on to keep tracking the users even when they think the smartphone is not powered.
Political ads, search services, social media and browsers that track the users.
PRISM thats ready to help any gov collect it all.
Junk crypto standards in an OS sold as full tested and trusted.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Freedom with responsibility really just means ensuring that the freedom is for everyone. What else would you be responsible for?
AC the battery is sealed in many brands of smartphone with a soft power off reported to the user.
The tracking will not stop when the smartphone GUI says its "off"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
AC the voice print is then linked to many other unrelated devices :)
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Sounds to me more like abolishing the board of directors. All these idealized systems have problems in the real world. Socialist things like co-ops still end up with someone running things even if in theory the whole community gets a vote and it's a shared effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me. Practically speaking, it is not that hard.
So he depend on other people forfeiting their privacy so he doesn't have to forfeit his. Seems like a philosophy that can work for everyone. Oh wait...
And that's without errors. With errors, your wife name will match that on a known (male!) terrorist, and you will spend three ours in a detention room abroad, or your house will match the location of a stolen item, you will be placed at the scene of a crime in the next state, and what not. Bounty hunters have already broken into the wrong person's house...
Yeah, I'm going to worry about that when it happens.
He refuses to carry a phone to protect his privacy, but the relies on others to compromise their own privacy for him to make a call on their devices...
What straw man thing is it that you think a safe space is? I guarantee you're probably wrong.
Safe space: a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.
Someone who is guaranteed to not be exposed to criticism is not emotionally strong and certainly isn't able to cope with different world views. Thus not a classic liberal.
Also, are you using the word classic as shorthand for ignorant deep-South?
That you use the South as a slur says more about you than Southerners. I suspect that you'd cal me names if I did something similar to your protected class of choice.
Why stop at China's borders with 'Social Credit'.. they can take it global.. we're not thinking big enough..
To buy from Aliexpress, your account will come with 'social credit'. Say something bad about China, your prices will go up.
Your company wants to buy (or sell) something with China as the counterparty.. how is the social credit of your staff rate? (they will slurp your staff list from linked in, facebook, or your company's poorly secured India outsourced mail server).
Then your HR will instruct you to never say anything bad about China on the web as it is 'bad for business'.
Oh, your Xiaomi or Huewai phone tells the Chinese govt that you went to China, or were at a democracy rally in your country... minus social credit for you..
The more powerful China's economy becomes in the world, the more this will impact you, even if you don't live in China or never intend to go there..
How so? How do open borders = death to the working class? Our most productive time in American history saw a large amount of immigration. The minimum wage ensures legal citizens are paid at least at the same starting point. Oh, you must mean those illegals, right? Hmm...and I wonder how they're getting jobs that place them below the federally mandated minimum wage? Oh, that's right, corporations. See an illegal in America doesn't work a job unless a company hires him to begin with. So the real death of the working class isn't Jose from Mexico, it's Bob the CEO from Fuck You, USA who is saying "I'm going to break the law and hire this person and pay them under the table at a severely reduced wage, because fuck America." Perhaps instead of a wall, we need mandatory background checks and employer new-hire reporting and auditing.
Can I assume that you're familiar with supply and demand and accept that overall it is a good explanation for things? There are many more employers than just Bob the CEO. Immigration, both legal and illegal, creates more workers. For the existing citizens this may or may not be a good thing, it depends on their circumstances. If you're Bob the CEO it's a great thing that there are more workers. If you already have money it's also a great thing since you now have more customers / renters / etc. If however you are a working person who is trying to earn a living there are more downsides than upsides. More people means housing costs go up. Traffic goes up. Schools are more crowded. Wages stagnate or sink. So yes, open borders == death to working class. That the party that claims it is the protector of the poor is pushing open borders is just too rich. The scale is too big for open borders to even succeed. If you're unsure about that, this video is worth 5 minutes of your time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Libertarians are the classical liberals. American 'liberals' are socialist authoritarians.
Feels good to lump people into categories doesn't it? Makes things easier to understand.
I've been watching that guy off an on for years and years. Everything is a problem, everything, except what the thinks, is a huge terrible problem. No, he just is built that way. He'd do better if he didn't talk so much.
Moderate groups are not the answer, because a moderate group will often just be some combination of both, but their views can be so strict that harm can happen as well.
I don't think you understand what it means to be moderate. It doesn't picking picking extreme ideas from one side or the other. It means ideas that are compromises that actually may have a chance of being accepted by both sides. E.g.,
You can be for immigration control, but also for amnesty for current undocumented Americans.
You can be pro-choice, but only for very early terms.
You can be anti-racist, but still acknowledge even a racists group's right to free speech.
This is where almost all Americans live. In the middle.
Of course, this is not what politicians want. They want us all to be fanatics, so we vote with them regardless of their actions.
Now - which of the two do you figure to be the most dangerous to individual life and liberty?
Depends. It's a bit like marshland vs a frozen lake, in a totalitarian society you start sinking into the mud the moment you stray from the path. Yes, it's nasty but you get plenty warning that this swamp is full of pits and quicksand that wants to eat you alive. In a free society you get the impression that you're free to roam around, doesn't matter what information you share with who at worst you get targeted ads you're not sent to a re-education camp. So further and further from shore you go, until that time where nobody really knew where you were, who you talked to and what you spent your time and money on is far off on the horizon. And that's when the ice starts to crack up under you...
If you look at something like the world democracy index the world is pretty much standing still, in 2006 it was at 5.52 and now it's at 5.48. The days when Eastern Europe and former Soviet states shook off Party rule and freedom made progress is halted, those who are authoritarian stay in power and about as many are getting worse as are getting better. Their economic power is also growing with China leading the way, I'm genuinely concerned that many countries think they need a "strong leader" to take charge where laws can get bent or broken and the government will stonewall out of any problems. All that keeps them from using all that data against you is just letters on a paper.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The wife name matching a terrorist name, and having to spend hours in a detention room in a Canadian airport happened to me. My wife's first name name is Alison, she goes by Allie, and I assume she matched an Ali from a former USSR republic (my last name is Slavic)
She is a redhead, out one year daughter was with us, and we were told the name of the list was male. It still took them hours to clear us.
Of course, you do not have to believe me.
No good deed goes unpunished...
I've never wanted a "mod +terrifying" before. It's rotten that that happened to you! The same things have happened to me and people I know, but it was traditional nonsense rather than new nonsense. For example someone had a small issue with his documents and didn't know to pay the bribe that was needed. It did not end pleasantly.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
All of these can happen without the technology we accept into our houses and pockets. But with the technology, every idiot can get on the game.
And as soon as this happens, if it ever happens, the value of any such inferences will fade away. The first few callouts of men by the #MeToo movement were telling enough to end careers with few questions asked. But after Garrison Keillor was deplatformed after one relationship wet wrong and Aziz Ansari for one bad date, the validity of the movement's callouts plummeted into obscurity.
Ok. And do you think people live within a safe space bubble full time or that it's a specific, separate sometimes need? Clearly you haven't given much thought other than to repeat talking points you've heard elsewhere. In what way does that mean a person is guaranteed not to be exposed to criticism, except in one very specific context?
And no, I did not say that all of the deep South was ignorant. Just that it's a location that has a very specific brand of ignorance within it, and it matched what it sounded like you were describing.
Sure - you allow the government, or anyone else willing to hire a good hacker, the ability to know exactly where you are, and listen to everything around you, whenever they want.
Individually, that's at least a little unnerving to consider, but really, who would care about me? On the other hand, that's the sort of information that makes it really easy to apply leverage to powerful people. And on the population level - that's the kind of civilian intelligence network that would have made the KGB wet themselves with glee.
Now maybe nobody is abusing that information for anything beyond marketing yet. But exactly how long do you think you can dangle that sort of temptation in front of the sort of ambitious men that gravitate to positions of power, before someone manages to seize it for their own ambitions?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This is folly. Big Brother is watching, there's little you can do about it. Between the vast number of surveillance cameras deployed in the entire world, license plate recognition, facial recognition, voice recognition... it really doesn't matter if you're carrying your digital leash or not, someone still knows exactly where you are and mostly likely what you're doing.
Fortunately, this isn't Stalin's world anymore, it's something different. Better, worse or no difference really remains to be seen.
I take comfort in the fact, there's got to be at least 5 billion cell phones in the field.. and Big Brother is just some data center doing Bayesian inference calculations on everything it 'observes.'
Texas has a shitload of liberals.
Play Command HQ online
Liberals are the classic liberals. American "liberals" are bogey man you've created in your head, probably with help.
Play Command HQ online
Libertarians are the anti-vaxxers of politics.
Play Command HQ online
GP's definition is the classic definition of a liberal political outlook. It's why countries like the US are called liberal democracies.
Play Command HQ online
in the US, if you're for the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then you're a liberal. If you're for defending the constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic, then you are a conservative.
Play Command HQ online
You are wrong.
He's fine with someone else trading their freedoms when it's convenient for HIM
They traded their freedoms at the time of buying the phone, activating mobile service on it, or putting it in their pockets while switched on while they were leaving their homes. They also kept trading it every moment they did not destroy / switch off / enclose in Faraday cage their phone. But they absolutely never traded any of their freedoms when it was convenient for RMS. Including the freedom to refuse to acquiesce to his request.
Actually, letting RMS make his call increases the anonymity and hence freedom a tiny bit. If you call the acquaintances of RMS instead of your own, the algorithms to figure out your social circle is a tiny bit more confused than if you were exclusively calling your own acquaintances.
I don't murder people so I'll hire this hit man to do it for me.
No, it is like I don't murder people but other people hire hit men anyway to murder yet other people. I can request the hit man to deliver a courier to the person being killed, or someone close to him. If the consignee is the one being murdered, I can further request the hit man to deliver it before the murder - but of course he may still choose to deliver after the murder or not deliver at all.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Of course not! The magic paper those old dudes wrote forbids all such things.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The phone network has to know where the phone is, but it does not need to tell the phone where it thinks the phone is. Especially in such a manner that then the phone can inform many apps running on the phone about its own whereabouts.
Everyone other than the phone network , who tries to track you based on this information : either from GPS or the phone network / wifi SSID location database - can be fooled using such a hack.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I met Stallman in grad school in the late 1980s and I do admire his coding and his beliefs regarding free software, but he doesn't have the sense of irony that he is castigating Stalinist policies while embracing a large portion of them.
If there's one thing slashdotters love to do, it's make up weird stuff about RMS. But do go on, how on earth is Stalllman stalanist? And please back that up with actual quotes not stuff you heard other people say he said.
The guy sounds very very freedom focussed to me. That's pretty much the opposite of Stalanism.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why, that's preposterous
Indeed and yet people still believe it. Remember that poem about the Nazis about how they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up etc? Do you know how it starts? Here let me find it for you:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a socialist.
But apparently in your mind the fact theycalled themselves socialists trumps the fact that thay actually mass murdered socialists.
Do you believe everything people tell you about themselves?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you're for defending the constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic, then you are a conservative.
Then why do so many conservatives still support Trump.
Remeber he pardoned former Sherriff Arpaio, and that chap was imprisoned literally for violating the constitution. Seems like a pretty direct attack on the consitution to me yet many conservatives support him.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Wow, that's actually a really good example. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll use it myself if don't mind!
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In generally free societies, you get spied on for profit (if they can), and little-to-nothing more. The worst they do with your data to is sell what they learn about you to advertisers, who them toss up ads that hopefully get past ad-blockers and try to entice you out of some of your money.
How quickly we forget the recent past.. FBI... Hollywood.. FBI files on prominent actresses/actors.. Constant surveilliance to root out the "communist sympathizers". But then again, freedom of association has never been an American thing.. Hell, freedom of religion has never really been an American thing.. Oh sure, you could be a Protestant, but if you were a Catholic you couldn't hope to hold any high federal offices.. "You might bend a knee to the Pope" was the logic behind that, but I digress..
The US, starting mostly during the cold war, has had a long love affair with spying on it's own citizens for purely political reasons.
"Screw You, We're From Texas"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No sig today...
Verbatim:
> I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Privacy is gone. Stop beating the dead horse. Stop all the anti-government cowboy bullshit. You look like dumbass backwater hicks.
The whole vector of progress is government getting more and more power. Orwellian and Kafkaesque worlds are as inevitable as climate change. The only way you got government less powerful is to throw away your phone (like this old dumbass idol of other old farts did), then all the tanks and go back to spear hunting into the jungle.
Otherwise, eat it. Learn to live with it. Learn to live with all your data being used to personalize advertisement to you.
The only war path is ad-blocking. Put all of your effort into this war: block ads, block ads, block ads. Fight for your sanity. Fight against people who keep saying that black is white.
Privacy is gone and people who are holding on to cowboy pseudo-ideology of XIX century look like imbeciles.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The fact that Stallman seems to have no sweet clue how the software on smartphones work, or that it is trivially possible to be 100% under your own control - including nowadays all the way to the modem firmware if you really want - makes me seriously wonder about him. Criminals have figured this out as a matter of course, you would think that for someone as supposedly smart as Stallman it would be simple.
He is SUPPOSED to be someone who is keeping pace with the industry and technology, but he has to ask people how cell phones work - and seemlingly gets the wrong answers?
This summary is mind boggling and makes me think he has really fallen off the deep end.
Sure, but malware on the phone is a secondary problem - anyone that has to resort to those tactics is a relatively minor threat to your freedom.
Still, something that I'd be all for - absolutely no sense making it easy for people. Personally I rarely have a use for GPS, and keep location information turned off on my phone for exactly that reason.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Sure, but malware on the phone is a secondary problem - anyone that has to resort to those tactics is a relatively minor threat to your freedom.
When the operating system (or at least in built software - practically the same thing for most people) is a malware, it is the primary problem ;). Almost by the definition of primary.
Android itself wants to track you. Many phone manufacturers want to track you independently of Android. Facebook app nearly certainly tracks you - and cannot be stopped easily. I am not sure how to distinguish between minor and major here - all seem a threat. Especially since there is one major declared leak a month : so one company having my info roughly means anyone could get it next month.
Apple's iOS is better - but losing your privacy could still be very easy with those devices too.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
The wife name matching a terrorist name, and having to spend hours in a detention room in a Canadian airport happened to me.
That's terrible and I'm sorry.
But as humans, we're able to differentiate between systemic problems and isolated incidents. If the above happens once a month, over the millions and millions of people flying, I'm not worried about it. My changes of being hit by a bus are much larger. If it happens 10 times a day, then let's talk.
The point isn't an actual level of public ownership. It's simply getting people used to depending on the state for everything, so they can be controlled-and pushing this narrative through socialist programs. This would probably take the form of fascism more than anything, with the state needing to use these large conglomerates to implement this, and the people being dependent to the point where there is no revolt.
If the state provides all healthcare, food, UBI, etc; you're not going to complain when then trot out something unpopular for fear of starving.
But you did eventually get out.
In a true dictatorship, they'd just toss you in and not care that they got it wrong. In fact, they would want to keep you locked up for fear of their error becoming public.
That being said, that shouldn't have happened to you and I'm sorry it did. I see no reason not to believe you...
You're talking about "classic liberalism".
there's a distinct difference between he generic work "liberal" and the political ideology of a "Liberal". I"m not sure why you're getting an insightful mod for this, it's common for political terms to take on a life of their own beyond the original term.
There are a lot of people, liberal and conservative, who consider themselves part of a "team", and support everything that team does regardless of logic.
We'd all be better off it everyone just started looking at issues and deciding for themselves what they support.
It's OK to agree with an issue Trump supports if you're liberal.
It's also OK to disagree with an issue Trump supports if you're conservative.
Quite frankly, it sort of creeps me out when people simply agree based on who is agreeing or disagreeing with an issue.
Canada is less socialist than most of the US. Literally the only socialist thing we do that you don't is provide medical care to everyone, not just poor people, elderly, and the military. And we do it spending less money per capita than you do just on those groups.
That doesn't even makes sense. You may as well say "libertarians are the kumquats of fruits"
You explain it to me then why instead of the S there isn't a L (for liberal, the real kind) or some other individual liberties minded doctrine ? Why did they chose socialism+*arbeiters* partei ? Let me guess they just had to pick a name and rolled a dice or something, since the nazis were known to not plan propaganda or anything.
They both pushed right wing societal values such as attacking and even killing homosexuals...
Wtf are you making stuff up? Attacking homosexuals is right there in Stuart Mill or Friedrich Hayek, I must have missed it. It's like saying leftist values are killing jews because the nazis were left wing.
He even believed in capitalism
Just like the KKK believes in freedom for all. What glue are you sniffing?
Not the American glue obviously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Oft repeated claim. But remains bullshit.
Libertarianism is much older than socialism. Socialism is incompatible with libertarianism, as are all command economies.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Why does the government have to be involved in socialism? Stalinism is not socialism or if it is, it is only one of many types of socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If it says apply liberally it can mean apply as much OR AS LITTLE as *YOU* WANT. Emphasys on YOUr dominion over the qty required. Also, i speak a neolatin language where to liberate means to free someone/something. (not to widen them).
Wow, that's actually a really good example. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll use it myself if don't mind!
Thanks, and please do!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That must be a pretty nice black and white universe you live in. The lack of moral ambiguity must be refreshing. You're either the Rebels or the Empire.
I'd love to be around when you begin learning about grey. I'm sure it won't be pretty.
Um... why not just get a phone that you can remove all sources of power from? Then, you could still use a cell phone when you are willing to, but not have it communicate in any way when you don't want it to.
This is why Google, Apple, and Samsung all make phones without removable batteries. So you can't actually turn the damned thing off. Ever.
I am still not entirely certain why removing the analog audio port is so important. I am guessing it has something to do with DRM and copying... but that really doesn't make any sense to me since I had to copy the music to the phone to begin with. I guess they assume everyone streams their music from a commercial service?
TL;DR, RMS is an absolutely fucking crazy nutjob. He happens to be right more than he is wrong, so people should pay attention to him... but do NOT treat him like a fucking God or something. Remember, he is an absolutely fucking crazy nutjob.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Welcome to the club. I am guessing most people think this is a pretty small club. It is not. Their algorithms are getting a little better though. They seemed to have realized that their original sets of rules essentially made sure a significant portion of the population matches those rules and it wasted their time. Of course, our time being wasted is not even of the slightest concern. No. It was that their time was wasted that caused it to change.
Many are still getting pulled aside, but it seems to be less frequent than before.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
See an illegal in America doesn't work a job unless a company hires him to begin with. So the real death of the working class isn't Jose from Mexico, it's Bob the CEO from Fuck You, USA who is saying "I'm going to break the law and hire this person and pay them under the table at a severely reduced wage, because fuck America."
Nailed it. Thanks Bob.
But, some of those illegals hang out in front of Home Depot or whatever and craftsmen pick them up at the beginning of the day and return them at the end of the day with a bit of money in their pocket. Illegal Immigration and the Death of the Middle Class are actually pretty deep and complex subjects.
But your original statement is exceedingly useful, so I stand by judgement of "nailed it!". No puns intended. ;)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
That's just what America tells itself. Just keep saying that you're free, the greatest country on Earth, etc. and a surprising number of people will be too stupid to check if it's true.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
I saw Stallman speak once and honestly, he came over as a religious cult figure. If Jesus came back 2000 years later he would be much like Stallman.
The crowd actually had people entranced by him in some dreamlike hypnotic state. HE had a robe on and came on to the stage with a halo on his head and announced himself as St Stallman of the Church of Gnu. He acted Jesus, had the Jesus arguments and got the same response as Jesus. He was a latter day Jesus. It was an amazing performance.
Same religious charm, same socialist crap, same complete disregard for the fact that people have to eat, same disregard for the reality that a brotherhood of man will never happen and giving anyone anything free they would take it and the creator would starve.
I actually had the gall to ask him QA what he thinks of the MPAA and RIAA. That set of the most incredible nuclear firestorm rant I ever saw.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Because communists claim to govern in the name of the people, that's why. Just like Hilter. Also like him they love them an all powerful state. Funny how you don't see any individual rights touted in either N.K. nor nazi Germany. Just a coincidence i guess that they all just love them this socialism stuff. You know, think of the people !!!!!!!!
Let me get this straight, you are comparing 1930s german honesty levels with N.K and Congo ?? Hell the nazis even wrote a book about their intentions, it's super obscure nobody read it....
He's a well-known tech guy. He (and we) should be able to get someone to rig up a physical switch to make/break the battery contact connection, right? All the privacy/security people complain about this, but it seems like this would be a simple thing to agitate for.
Or to pre-order.