Lou: I went to the McDonald's over in Shelbyville the other day.
Chief Wiggum: The Mc-what?
Lou: Yeah, I never heard of it either but they say they have over 2,000 locations in this state alone.
Eddie: Hmm... Must've sprung up over night.
Lou: But you know, it's the little differences.
Chief Wiggum: Example.
Lou: Well, at a McDonald's you can get a Krusty Burger with cheese. But they don't call it a Krusty Burger with cheese.
Chief Wiggum: Get out. What do they call it?
Lou: A "Quarter Pounder" with cheese.
Chief Wiggum: "Quarter Pounder" with cheese? Well, I can see the cheese but? Do they have Krusty's "Partially Gelatinated, Non-Dairy, Gum-Based Beverages"?
Lou: Yeah, they call them "shakes."
Eddie: Huh. "Shakes." You don't know what you're gettin'.
Yes, because socialism makes everyone poor. Let's take this example: 99 homeless people (net worth $0) + 1 billionaire (net worth $1b). Since we:re a socialist society, we'll even out all of their money. ($0 + $1,000,000,000) / 100 = $1,000,000 per person. FUCK! WHY DOES SOCIALISM MAKE EVERYONE SO POOR?!
Look, my example was retarded. I don't remotely believe the world should work that way, but as retarded as my example is, it's not even a billionth as retarded as your jackass comment.
I haven't seen that announcement and I just googled it and found nothing. Could you please send me a link to the announcement where they say they will delete unattached accounts (which would affect me and the 10 different accounts that I use, only one of which I'm willing to attach myself to)
I never used Mega Video for anything, legit or infringing. I have no opinion of Kim Dotcom. But really, is Dotcom or Ochocinco really worse than "Miller" or "Johnson"? So someone in your history was a miller at some point, now all of his descendants are? Some guy's dad on your history was named John, yay! At least Dotcom and Ochocinco have real personal relevance to those gentlemen. Anyone with a stupid last name like "smith" should think about changing it to something modern. How many smithies are there in ten people, 0.2? 0.1? Retarded last name.
Is Kim Dotcom a "douche"? I don't know, I've never met him. Even if he was, though, he still doesn't deserve two government colluding and breaking laws to arrest him. I don't need a third-person written wikipedia article to determine that you, however, are a judgemental prick.
I can't speak for the accuracy of his claim that in "other cultures", it's usually a winner take all scenario where one parent walks away and disappears, and the other steps up to raise the kid. But I definitely think there are times when this really is the best outcome for the kid.
As an American living and abiding by one of those "other cultures" let me just say no. NO! NO! NO! Japan is one of those other cultures. There is no concept here of joint custody. A good friend of mine hasn't seen his boys in three years now, despite desperately wanting to. His ex-wife's psycho parents agreed with you that letting him see his children would "confuse" them, thus they told their daughter to move and not tell him where and refuse to divulge the information. He has no legal recourse.
Unless the mother gives up the right or is mentally unfit, custody defaults to the mother here. Despite the fact that my son obviously prefers me more, were I ever to get that divorce that I think of sometimes, I know there's more than a 90% chance that I would never see him again. So I don't want to hear you bitch about your inconvenience that your ex still has some rights that she never exercises anyway and pine for another culture where such a minor inconvenience wouldn't have occurred.
Think people will play NFL football for $35,000 a year? Not in this lifetime. This is just the stupidest concept you could have possibly brought to an already silly topic.
Considering that people play Arena Football for $400 a game, I think they'd jump at the chance to get paid that much to be on a nationally televised game.
Wow, just... wow. I'm no Libertarian, but that article made me ill. Subsidies and government mandated price-fixing? Why don't they get on with it and make libraries illegal and require everyone to buy a fucking book a week?
Despite such an effective deterrent, it's funny how new criminals seemed to pop up anyway. The way you say it, it's almost like there was no crime back then.
That's a very poor analogy.
First of all, most curtains are open by default!
I think for that reason my analogy is spot on. DNT closes the curtains, where as tracking would have them open.
What you are saying is, it's totally fine with you for a computer to watch you take a shower and store it on a "secure" server somewhere for the rest of your life + however many years. Also, I never said anything about showers, I said peep into your window at all times. That includes things from the shower (watching pron) and generic sitting on the couch scratching your balls (posting on/.). I don't want anybody collecting data on whether my left side or right side itches more and how that interplays with my desire to eat white bread.
As stated, I would object to that IE message. I wouldn't object to something like:
Some advertisers would like to collect data on you and hold it forever on their servers, and you have no knowledge of what transpires with that information whether it's stolen by hackers or just plain sold. This is all so that you might be bombarded with ads that they think might be pertinent to your interests, but in all most likelihood will be as relevant as generic ads targeted at the site you are on. Do you wish to allow them to data mine you?
Then the default action (so when the user who has just skipped reading the previous message) is to DNT.
As for the complaints of bias, I'm not sure if you are talking about your message or the letter from the ad shills. Your message is biased in favor of tracking (that whole "stuff you're probably not interested in" line makes it biased), while my message is biased against tracking. If you meant the letter from the shills, I would think equating DNT to adblock would be enough evidence of a strong bias.
Last, my analogy already told you why I think it's worse that no DNT by default. It's like buying a new house with the curtains open and some machine recording your every action. Sure you could close the curtains after the fact, but when they're set up funky and you have to jump through hoops to, there'll be more people who don't.
I just finished reading the letter and found it disgusting. If you took it out of "the internet" and put it in the real world things like
By setting the Internet Explorer browser to block data collection, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to collect web viewing data of up to 43 percent of the browsers used by Americans.
would read more like
By setting the curtains to closed by default, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to peep through windows of up to 43 percent of the houses used by Americans.
To top it off, they have gems like this
A simple example of advertising in the television medium makes this point clear. If consumers were presented a choice of whether they want advertisements on network television to be broadcast, consumers would likely choose “no advertising.” But if 43 percent of American households were removed from the television advertising audience, consumers collectively would suffer because network television as we know it would no longer be a viable business model.
They're acting like MS is installing adblock and turning it on by default. What MS is doing is making the internet more like TV, where the adds are dumb and have to be generally targeted at the type of site, as opposed to creepily personalized.
One big thing about this law is a DMCA-like crack down on circumventing DRM and most Japanese language articles about this talk about it including making copies of movies or CDs that you rent. I didn't go to a rental store today, but it's always been one of my personal pleasures to walk into a movies store and the main display when you walk in is piles of blank CDs and DVDs. The largest chain Tsutaya often doubles as a bookstore with books and magazines teaching you how to rip CDs and DVDs were prominently displayed. I might go down tomorrow to see if it's changed at all. Though when the price of a new CD is generally $30+, it makes a lot of sense that most Japanese people would just rent and rip.
I love laws like this! What happens when the Prime Minister's account posts "Yer teh G4yz!" all over the place? Why must people who make laws be so stupid and ignorant of anything technological?
This. This is the post I was going to make when I first read this article. What happens when some zombienet decides it doesn't like a site? Say I've got a phishing site and I blast the real site into oblivion while my site goes up. I saw let's beat them to it and just spam the fuck out if *AA sites.
Here's the link. Let's have at it:
http://support.google.com/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1114905&page=ts.cs
That line of thinking was invalidated by WWII... how?
Do you mean the part where the US came in after the Soviets had won the war in Europe and declared itself the winner?
Or the part where the US took on an opponent that could barely challenge them... and used nuclear weapons in a war already practically won?
Americans contributed very little to the defeat of the Axis. Most of the fall of the Axis can be attributed to the Nazi military leaders being just plain incompetent. And of course, the Soviet Union, to provide the iceberg for Nazi Germany to ram into.
Hello Thank you for checking in. I'm always curious to see how it's going in the bizarro world of Forever Now. Good to know nothing has changed since last time, nor the time before that, or before that, or before that, or before that. In the world of Forever Now, "insurance" is a scam and everyone knows it because nothing bad ever happens because nothing ever changes. Fire extinguishers? Non existent! Why should they? No one will ever use them. Waste of money!
Seriously, are you that short-sighted or just that stupid? Ever sick person was once "young and healthy".
There is only one Lady Gaga, and she can't be everywhere at once, and she is therefore by definition scarce.
Which is why people pay a lot of money to see her in concert.
Recording and mass marketing has made her un-scarce. She chose this route. She did so in order to maximize her
profit, with the expectation that she might make some money. Not an unreasonable expectation.
No, it made her music un-scarce. There is still only one Lady Gaga. Even if her income from published music were 0, she'd still make more money than if she hadn't recorded anything. The records are brand recognition.
When there were records (vinyl), artists and labels could press a short run, label them a collector's edition if they wanted, and
controlled the number in production. Same for books. That too was a artificial scarcity of sorts.
So was the 1937 Bugatti Type 57S Atalante Coupe, 17 made. They could have made any number.
How does the availability of MP3s or eBooks or kit cars prevent any of this? These things are not data, they are things and with such have a physical, and thus limited i.e. scarce availability.
Others could have copied the car, or the books or the records. But we, as a society, gave that right
to the car company, the author, or the artist. Never mind WHY we did that. Those arguments are not
germane, we did it, enshrined it in law, and it is what it is.
I'll agree to this as we're debating about scarcity. However, you are severely confusing PHYSICAL goods with data.
Digital music / ebooks / videos removed all capability for the artist to control the number of copies, and allows
anyone, at will, to create any number of copies.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, simply hand wave that away and claim a business model is morally
wrong simply because it is suddenly possible to circumvent it in your parents' basement with an $800 computer.
Why not? What gives you the right to wave your hand and say it's morally right for society to treat data as it were a physical object? Morality is an ambiguous thing. You can't claim intellectual dishonesty over morality. Was prohibition moral? The people who passed it thought so, but pretty much everyone else thought no. Is the drug war moral? The people who support it do, I think it's the most disgustingly immoral act on going in the US.
Ford could have copied Bugatti. But the barriers to entry were high enough (an automotive assembly plant) to prevent that.
Someone could have pressed a copy of the Beach Boys albums, or any best selling book. Again you had to have the
expensive tools and you would risk getting caught with a warehouse full of counterfeit goods.
But the goods are only counterfeit because we as a society have said we allow for an artificial scarcity.
The computer removes all of that, and gives any 12 year old the ability to make perfect copies at zero cost.
Of a 1937 Bugatti Type 57S Atalante Coupe?! What program do they have that I don't?!
Does that fact somehow trump the law, wash away the artist's rights, and make copying anything legal?
Well no one ever said laws were moral.
Will 3D printing do the same for physical objects?
I hope so.
The concept of artificial scarcity is, itself, artificial: man made.
Artificial scarcity is artificial? I thought that's what the phrase meant. Scarce: Lady Gaga. Not Scarce: A grain of sand. Artificially scarce: A grain of sand when walls with armed guards surround every beach.
No, apparently they didn't. From the "Greatest" Generation directly to the "Me" Generation is stunning. I blame "The Greatest Generation", TV and 1960s Progressivism (the results of which are still being felt in society).
Progressivism because (1) flag burning and riots and meeting with the North Vietnamese in Cuba tends to transmit to everyone else, no matter what your pious words are, that you hate your country, thus breaking societal cohesion
Oh, you mean unlike where 100 years before those fucking goddamn hippies there wasn't an ACTUAL FUCKING WAR that tore the country into two? Yeah, it was hippies meeting with those fucking Vietcong in Cuba.
(2) TV and movies -- of which all/majority of the writer were Progressive -- starting in the 1970s coarsening the culture with ever increasing amounts of foul language in movies and TV while eliminating cultural norms like good manners: children saying Please, Thank You, Sir & Ma'am, thus destroying the social lubricant and lastly
Yeah! You tell it man! It's all those fucking Jews in Hollywood's fault! TV and movies in no way whatsoever reflect society. Hollywood should go back to pre-talkies! Everyone was so much nicer then and in the past society was so much better!
(3) the belief that nationalism is a Bad Thing, and therefore nations are a Bad Thing; thus people claiming to be "citizens of the world" and welcoming large-scale illegal immigration.
Yeah! Fucking people not staying in the shitholes where they belong, stealing all our low-wage jobs and infecting us with the BAD MANNERS! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Dude, seriously, you blame black people, asians, cubans, the jewish, and mexicans for the downfall of society. Just admit it: you're racist. Just come out and say "If it weren't for all those non-white males, the world would be so much better off"
Yes, and Nobel invineted TNT, Gatling invented the Gatling gun to show how futile war is and Pulitzer was the father of yellow jounalism. Remorse and 3.25 will get you a cup of coffee.
Thank you for pointing out that/. commenters tend to have a consistant view on issues. The "anti-terrorism" *cough* fake security *cough* is really a huge erosioun of privacy and gets condemned. Facebook is a living privacy erosion monster and gets condemned. We here at/. luvs our privacy, now get the fuck off my lawn and stop peeking in my windows.
I don't know why this has been modded down. Sure the guy went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over board (come on it's America sue!) but the thing that pissed me off the most in the summary was reporting him as a pedo when he kissed his own son. Dear god don't let there be a man who shows affection to his child. What did the couple want? Did they want him to spank his son so that he'd never go near their property again? I bet then they'd call social services and say that he was beating his son. They way I see this story is a shithead was extracting revenge on some shitheads.
I live in Japan so that magical time is only 6 hours away. I'll be hitting it first, so be sure to follow me on twitter @SoThisIsRapture to find out what you're in store for!
Slashdot Mirror
Oblig SImpsons:
Lou: I went to the McDonald's over in Shelbyville the other day.
Chief Wiggum: The Mc-what?
Lou: Yeah, I never heard of it either but they say they have over 2,000 locations in this state alone.
Eddie: Hmm... Must've sprung up over night.
Lou: But you know, it's the little differences.
Chief Wiggum: Example.
Lou: Well, at a McDonald's you can get a Krusty Burger with cheese. But they don't call it a Krusty Burger with cheese.
Chief Wiggum: Get out. What do they call it?
Lou: A "Quarter Pounder" with cheese.
Chief Wiggum: "Quarter Pounder" with cheese? Well, I can see the cheese but? Do they have Krusty's "Partially Gelatinated, Non-Dairy, Gum-Based Beverages"?
Lou: Yeah, they call them "shakes."
Eddie: Huh. "Shakes." You don't know what you're gettin'.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=simpsons%20mcdonalds%20vs%20krusty%20burger&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiwuSGvfN0T4&ei=oqH8UP9N6u-YBZaugaAE&usg=AFQjCNHgU4AKzw3tDsXO7O4JCnRCt4SuRA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dGY
Yes, because socialism makes everyone poor. Let's take this example: 99 homeless people (net worth $0) + 1 billionaire (net worth $1b). Since we:re a socialist society, we'll even out all of their money. ($0 + $1,000,000,000) / 100 = $1,000,000 per person. FUCK! WHY DOES SOCIALISM MAKE EVERYONE SO POOR?!
Look, my example was retarded. I don't remotely believe the world should work that way, but as retarded as my example is, it's not even a billionth as retarded as your jackass comment.
I haven't seen that announcement and I just googled it and found nothing. Could you please send me a link to the announcement where they say they will delete unattached accounts (which would affect me and the 10 different accounts that I use, only one of which I'm willing to attach myself to)
I never used Mega Video for anything, legit or infringing. I have no opinion of Kim Dotcom. But really, is Dotcom or Ochocinco really worse than "Miller" or "Johnson"? So someone in your history was a miller at some point, now all of his descendants are? Some guy's dad on your history was named John, yay! At least Dotcom and Ochocinco have real personal relevance to those gentlemen. Anyone with a stupid last name like "smith" should think about changing it to something modern. How many smithies are there in ten people, 0.2? 0.1? Retarded last name.
Is Kim Dotcom a "douche"? I don't know, I've never met him. Even if he was, though, he still doesn't deserve two government colluding and breaking laws to arrest him. I don't need a third-person written wikipedia article to determine that you, however, are a judgemental prick.
I can't speak for the accuracy of his claim that in "other cultures", it's usually a winner take all scenario where one parent walks away and disappears, and the other steps up to raise the kid. But I definitely think there are times when this really is the best outcome for the kid.
As an American living and abiding by one of those "other cultures" let me just say no. NO! NO! NO! Japan is one of those other cultures. There is no concept here of joint custody. A good friend of mine hasn't seen his boys in three years now, despite desperately wanting to. His ex-wife's psycho parents agreed with you that letting him see his children would "confuse" them, thus they told their daughter to move and not tell him where and refuse to divulge the information. He has no legal recourse.
Unless the mother gives up the right or is mentally unfit, custody defaults to the mother here. Despite the fact that my son obviously prefers me more, were I ever to get that divorce that I think of sometimes, I know there's more than a 90% chance that I would never see him again. So I don't want to hear you bitch about your inconvenience that your ex still has some rights that she never exercises anyway and pine for another culture where such a minor inconvenience wouldn't have occurred.
Think people will play NFL football for $35,000 a year? Not in this lifetime. This is just the stupidest concept you could have possibly brought to an already silly topic.
Considering that people play Arena Football for $400 a game, I think they'd jump at the chance to get paid that much to be on a nationally televised game.
Wow, just... wow. I'm no Libertarian, but that article made me ill. Subsidies and government mandated price-fixing? Why don't they get on with it and make libraries illegal and require everyone to buy a fucking book a week?
Despite such an effective deterrent, it's funny how new criminals seemed to pop up anyway. The way you say it, it's almost like there was no crime back then.
There are sometimes I wish Slashdot went over +5...
That's a very poor analogy. First of all, most curtains are open by default!
I think for that reason my analogy is spot on. DNT closes the curtains, where as tracking would have them open.
/.). I don't want anybody collecting data on whether my left side or right side itches more and how that interplays with my desire to eat white bread.
What you are saying is, it's totally fine with you for a computer to watch you take a shower and store it on a "secure" server somewhere for the rest of your life + however many years. Also, I never said anything about showers, I said peep into your window at all times. That includes things from the shower (watching pron) and generic sitting on the couch scratching your balls (posting on
As stated, I would object to that IE message. I wouldn't object to something like:
Some advertisers would like to collect data on you and hold it forever on their servers, and you have no knowledge of what transpires with that information whether it's stolen by hackers or just plain sold. This is all so that you might be bombarded with ads that they think might be pertinent to your interests, but in all most likelihood will be as relevant as generic ads targeted at the site you are on. Do you wish to allow them to data mine you?
Then the default action (so when the user who has just skipped reading the previous message) is to DNT.
As for the complaints of bias, I'm not sure if you are talking about your message or the letter from the ad shills. Your message is biased in favor of tracking (that whole "stuff you're probably not interested in" line makes it biased), while my message is biased against tracking. If you meant the letter from the shills, I would think equating DNT to adblock would be enough evidence of a strong bias.
Last, my analogy already told you why I think it's worse that no DNT by default. It's like buying a new house with the curtains open and some machine recording your every action. Sure you could close the curtains after the fact, but when they're set up funky and you have to jump through hoops to, there'll be more people who don't.
By setting the Internet Explorer browser to block data collection, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to collect web viewing data of up to 43 percent of the browsers used by Americans.
would read more like
By setting the curtains to closed by default, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to peep through windows of up to 43 percent of the houses used by Americans.
To top it off, they have gems like this
A simple example of advertising in the television medium makes this point clear. If consumers were presented a choice of whether they want advertisements on network television to be broadcast, consumers would likely choose “no advertising.” But if 43 percent of American households were removed from the television advertising audience, consumers collectively would suffer because network television as we know it would no longer be a viable business model.
They're acting like MS is installing adblock and turning it on by default. What MS is doing is making the internet more like TV, where the adds are dumb and have to be generally targeted at the type of site, as opposed to creepily personalized.
One big thing about this law is a DMCA-like crack down on circumventing DRM and most Japanese language articles about this talk about it including making copies of movies or CDs that you rent. I didn't go to a rental store today, but it's always been one of my personal pleasures to walk into a movies store and the main display when you walk in is piles of blank CDs and DVDs. The largest chain Tsutaya often doubles as a bookstore with books and magazines teaching you how to rip CDs and DVDs were prominently displayed. I might go down tomorrow to see if it's changed at all. Though when the price of a new CD is generally $30+, it makes a lot of sense that most Japanese people would just rent and rip.
I don't sit with my back to the door at restaurants any more,
Wild Bill Hickok is that you?!
I love laws like this! What happens when the Prime Minister's account posts "Yer teh G4yz!" all over the place? Why must people who make laws be so stupid and ignorant of anything technological?
This. This is the post I was going to make when I first read this article. What happens when some zombienet decides it doesn't like a site? Say I've got a phishing site and I blast the real site into oblivion while my site goes up. I saw let's beat them to it and just spam the fuck out if *AA sites. Here's the link. Let's have at it: http://support.google.com/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1114905&page=ts.cs
That line of thinking was invalidated by WWII... how?
Do you mean the part where the US came in after the Soviets had won the war in Europe and declared itself the winner?
Or the part where the US took on an opponent that could barely challenge them... and used nuclear weapons in a war already practically won?
Americans contributed very little to the defeat of the Axis. Most of the fall of the Axis can be attributed to the Nazi military leaders being just plain incompetent. And of course, the Soviet Union, to provide the iceberg for Nazi Germany to ram into.
I weep for the US education system...
Hello Thank you for checking in. I'm always curious to see how it's going in the bizarro world of Forever Now. Good to know nothing has changed since last time, nor the time before that, or before that, or before that, or before that. In the world of Forever Now, "insurance" is a scam and everyone knows it because nothing bad ever happens because nothing ever changes. Fire extinguishers? Non existent! Why should they? No one will ever use them. Waste of money!
Seriously, are you that short-sighted or just that stupid? Ever sick person was once "young and healthy".
There is only one Lady Gaga, and she can't be everywhere at once, and she is therefore by definition scarce.
Which is why people pay a lot of money to see her in concert.
Recording and mass marketing has made her un-scarce. She chose this route. She did so in order to maximize her profit, with the expectation that she might make some money. Not an unreasonable expectation.
No, it made her music un-scarce. There is still only one Lady Gaga. Even if her income from published music were 0, she'd still make more money than if she hadn't recorded anything. The records are brand recognition.
When there were records (vinyl), artists and labels could press a short run, label them a collector's edition if they wanted, and controlled the number in production. Same for books. That too was a artificial scarcity of sorts. So was the 1937 Bugatti Type 57S Atalante Coupe, 17 made. They could have made any number.
How does the availability of MP3s or eBooks or kit cars prevent any of this? These things are not data, they are things and with such have a physical, and thus limited i.e. scarce availability.
Others could have copied the car, or the books or the records. But we, as a society, gave that right to the car company, the author, or the artist. Never mind WHY we did that. Those arguments are not germane, we did it, enshrined it in law, and it is what it is.
I'll agree to this as we're debating about scarcity. However, you are severely confusing PHYSICAL goods with data.
Digital music / ebooks / videos removed all capability for the artist to control the number of copies, and allows anyone, at will, to create any number of copies.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, simply hand wave that away and claim a business model is morally wrong simply because it is suddenly possible to circumvent it in your parents' basement with an $800 computer.
Why not? What gives you the right to wave your hand and say it's morally right for society to treat data as it were a physical object? Morality is an ambiguous thing. You can't claim intellectual dishonesty over morality. Was prohibition moral? The people who passed it thought so, but pretty much everyone else thought no. Is the drug war moral? The people who support it do, I think it's the most disgustingly immoral act on going in the US.
Ford could have copied Bugatti. But the barriers to entry were high enough (an automotive assembly plant) to prevent that. Someone could have pressed a copy of the Beach Boys albums, or any best selling book. Again you had to have the expensive tools and you would risk getting caught with a warehouse full of counterfeit goods.
But the goods are only counterfeit because we as a society have said we allow for an artificial scarcity.
The computer removes all of that, and gives any 12 year old the ability to make perfect copies at zero cost.
Of a 1937 Bugatti Type 57S Atalante Coupe?! What program do they have that I don't?!
Does that fact somehow trump the law, wash away the artist's rights, and make copying anything legal?
Well no one ever said laws were moral.
Will 3D printing do the same for physical objects?
I hope so.
The concept of artificial scarcity is, itself, artificial: man made.
Artificial scarcity is artificial? I thought that's what the phrase meant. Scarce: Lady Gaga. Not Scarce: A grain of sand. Artificially scarce: A grain of sand when walls with armed guards surround every beach.
No, apparently they didn't. From the "Greatest" Generation directly to the "Me" Generation is stunning. I blame "The Greatest Generation", TV and 1960s Progressivism (the results of which are still being felt in society).
Progressivism because (1) flag burning and riots and meeting with the North Vietnamese in Cuba tends to transmit to everyone else, no matter what your pious words are, that you hate your country, thus breaking societal cohesion
Oh, you mean unlike where 100 years before those fucking goddamn hippies there wasn't an ACTUAL FUCKING WAR that tore the country into two? Yeah, it was hippies meeting with those fucking Vietcong in Cuba.
(2) TV and movies -- of which all/majority of the writer were Progressive -- starting in the 1970s coarsening the culture with ever increasing amounts of foul language in movies and TV while eliminating cultural norms like good manners: children saying Please, Thank You, Sir & Ma'am, thus destroying the social lubricant and lastly
Yeah! You tell it man! It's all those fucking Jews in Hollywood's fault! TV and movies in no way whatsoever reflect society. Hollywood should go back to pre-talkies! Everyone was so much nicer then and in the past society was so much better!
(3) the belief that nationalism is a Bad Thing, and therefore nations are a Bad Thing; thus people claiming to be "citizens of the world" and welcoming large-scale illegal immigration.
Yeah! Fucking people not staying in the shitholes where they belong, stealing all our low-wage jobs and infecting us with the BAD MANNERS! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Dude, seriously, you blame black people, asians, cubans, the jewish, and mexicans for the downfall of society. Just admit it: you're racist. Just come out and say "If it weren't for all those non-white males, the world would be so much better off"
Yes, and Nobel invineted TNT, Gatling invented the Gatling gun to show how futile war is and Pulitzer was the father of yellow jounalism. Remorse and 3.25 will get you a cup of coffee.
Thank you for pointing out that /. commenters tend to have a consistant view on issues. The "anti-terrorism" *cough* fake security *cough* is really a huge erosioun of privacy and gets condemned. Facebook is a living privacy erosion monster and gets condemned. We here at /. luvs our privacy, now get the fuck off my lawn and stop peeking in my windows.
d'oh. redacted
I don't know why this has been modded down. Sure the guy went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over board (come on it's America sue!) but the thing that pissed me off the most in the summary was reporting him as a pedo when he kissed his own son. Dear god don't let there be a man who shows affection to his child. What did the couple want? Did they want him to spank his son so that he'd never go near their property again? I bet then they'd call social services and say that he was beating his son. They way I see this story is a shithead was extracting revenge on some shitheads.
Going on this comment and this entire thread I'm going to go with option H: You're crazy
I live in Japan so that magical time is only 6 hours away. I'll be hitting it first, so be sure to follow me on twitter @SoThisIsRapture to find out what you're in store for!