I can see why you want to defend your highly ranked comment, but with this load of incoherent bullshit?
I used the term propaganda because your arguments are in favor of these measures and you got your theory wrong from the outset. If you actually wanted to reduce the number of petty crime you wouldn't take DNA samples from every suspect but start actually punishing the big players. The shoplifter doesn't get his justification from the "common" lawlessness but from the lawlessness that is endorsed and furthered (apparently) by banking consortiae and such. How would the petty thief who steals for his drug habit or other social disadvantage see the reasoning behind broader law enforcement measures while the bankers who've burned billions of dollars walk free, wait, even get more money to throw away and are paid their bonusses? The perception of crime is not governed by how it is punished but with what you can actually get away with. Why doesn't the death penalty work? Explain to a shoplifter why he has to go to jail and give his DNA samples and the bank managers don't even have to show up in court. I appreciate your approach but I think it's flawed. If you see on TV that being a major asshole and a douchebag is perfectly acceptable and will earn you millions of dollars eventually there is absolutely no sense in trying to coerce the little guy on the street to believe in stronger law enforcement if society as a whole has adopted a corrupted agenda. That is what I think you meant by "surface level".
Then the next thing.
Uwe Boll? Are you serious? You consider that dork Hollywood? And let's not forget real quick that no one here gave him money... it was American studios who gave him the dough to produce these celluloid atrocities. To me he's not even in the same league with other film makers despite his investors might be the same. You can blame Germany for quite a lot but not for that shit. I'm talking about movies like Michael Clayton for example. The typical "rich industrialist who uses his contacts to build a secret network to gain power" look at the old Capra movies for god's sake.
You accuse people of using QUOTE
mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments
And yet, you use ridiculous stereotypes of the commenters yourself. All I was trying to get across was that whatever nutcase conspiracy theory the tinfoil hat demographics comes up with there is something even worse going on in real life. Read a few things about the US government and the CIA and what their methods of control and "guidance" are. Read a book about the Gladio "stay behind" networks and look at some of the (recent) politically motivated wars and coups to install governments. Whatever you think people over-exaggerate I think you don't even see the tip of the iceberg yet.
in conclusion: pointing out that hollywood traffics in stereotypes on my part is propaganda. i need to accept hollywood stereotypes as representations of social truth
Where are you getting this crap? Nothing of what you call you "conclusion" was even implied in what I wrote. You say "people use hollywood stereotypes to make up crazy conspiracies". I say "hollywood uses real life as a stencil and creates it's characters after actual events, therefore some of the conspiracy theories are probably even worse in reality than they are depicted in movies". Talk about Watergate and the whole Iraq war story. No one knew about tortured prisoners and missing WMDs and so on, All just coincidence. I don't actually believe something that you made out of my words by completely ignoring the context. So cry if you have to. Laugh if you must. I certainly don't give a rat's ass because you're hopeless.
So what's the problem with taking a little bit of spit?
You don't seem to realize that to leave your fingerprints you actually have to touch something. To have you face being photographed in some place you need to be there.
For your DNA to show up in some place you've never heard of you just have to sneeze on the Bus or scratch you head in the subway. Someone treads on one of the hairs that fell out of your nose or from your eyebrows and his shoe carries that to wherever. All of a sudden your DNA from the sneeze is found on the doorknob of a dealers apartement and one of your hairs is collected at the scene of a murder. Then YOU have to prove you've never been there despite the genetic evidence indisputably linked to you.
To me that's a LOT worse than fingerprints and mugshots. We spread our DNA involuntarily everywhere. Watch Gattaca then you'll start to understand.
No one knows, common house dust is mainly construed of dead skin particles and broken hairs. So basically you can pick up a can of evidence behind everyone's TV set. Sure there are limitations but once we start with this bogus nonsense there is hardly a way to go back.
i'm not saying that dna tracking should be supported, i'm just framing the reason why law enforcement is interested in dna. as opposed to the mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments
You got something wrong here, these hollywood characters are modeled after real-life people. Always were. There's stuff going on that a writer can't even make up. So don't be so sure, what you're writing here sounds like you want to make a reasonable point but it acts as diluted propaganda.
I personally am strongly opposed to governments that want to put their citizens in databases and monitor them according to irrelevant statistical details. I'm from Germany and that's why we got the Holocaust. Someone said "Let's sort this list via the "Religion" column" and then the shitstorm started.
Welcome to the New World Order... where security means everyone's a suspect and constant supervision is the only way to achieve true freedom. Way to go.
The Terrorists have already won. Being terrorized means losing to terror, suspecting everyone and subjecting them to criminal prosecution no matter what they did... that's paranoia and being terrified right there. Terrorists Win. Let Osama bin Laden slip... we don't need him anymore to errect our own Panopticon of terror.
Seriously, why do we need Javascript to read articles or blogs? If your web apps are abusing Javascript to display ads, maybe it is time to consider not using web apps, or finding "friendlier" companies.
WE (as in users) don't need Javascript. I've been following the trends on more and more script code on websites for years now. If you really look at it most of the code is used to a) gather data about the user or b) display messages and ads to the user. There is a smaller category c) running useful code (like flash video players, online apps etc.).
The reality is that many companies base their revenue streams on these ad systems which include addthis, google-analytics and so forth. By simply blocking these you'll have a hassle free surfing experience but will have to occasionally activate some stuff to make your site work (which at times can be quite tedious finding out which one of the fifteen cryptic script hosters is responsible for the video player itself).
I sometimes worry if I deprive my sites of their ad revenue by blocking these shitty ads but then again I never voluntarily clicked, let alone bought something from, a banner or popup ad. As long as there are blinking, sound playing, window resizing, non-closable, code-executing messages that want to bum some attention I will block them.
Firefox, Noscript. No more problems. I hate surfing on machines without those installed.
Phase 1:
People have high expectations of your new product. They're fed up by the repetitive software releases you've done over the years and the lack of innovation from your part. Then you release a software that draws all the attention (or aggro, for WoW players). Once everybody has jumped either on the hater bandwagon or put up with the new, yet old, system you go to the next step. You use popular figures (like comedians) and one of your famous company people (maybe a nerd) to make advertisements that make people go "Really? What is this shit? I won't buy, but I know it's Delicious" to sidetrack even more of the critics.
Phase 2:
You announce your "true" new product (which was in development all along and was intended to be the successor to your old product line in any case) as the next big thing "coming soon". Since that newly developed system doesn't have enough new ideas to convince people to switch, and people are already confused by your current shitfest of a project you need to give them an incentive, that's what they needed Vista for. MS released Vista saying it will be their new OS and after the confusion had manifested and the expectations had been severely disappointed they start the next phase.
Phase 3:
You release an older polished release candidate of a less important branch of your true product as "the real deal". Then when people start questioning your abilities you go ahead and re-release your original new product line under a fancy new name. This way the expectations have already been lowered from the outset and the "new alternative" looks like a worthwhile contestant all of a sudden. Without Vista, the very same criticism that hit it, would have hit Windows 7 instead. Win7 looks like a slightly improved Vista, whereas Vista looked like a slightly improved XP. So, instead of making real big jumps and actually innovating you do two little intermediary steps and consumers will praise you for two entirely different new version of the operating system.
Phase 4:
Profit?
Seriously this, to me, sounds like an elaborate plan to con consumers into buying into the age old "fuck up and re-release" cycle that we have come to expect from Microsoft. A clever usage of market economics of perception rationale. If you serve people average products you will eventually go broke. But if you sell them really terrible products for a short period of time, rule out all options for downgrading and then start selling average products again you will be better off than by simply selling average crap to begin with.
They've employed a 300 Million Dollar ad strategy and let me tell you... Seinfeld wasn't the expensive part. The costly part was to produce a mock-up product that was only meant to distract customer and media attention for long enough for the disappointment to wear off into "I'll settle with average"-ism. I tip my hat to thee Microsoft. This time, I'm actually impressed. Or rather I would be, hadn't I been able to see through it.
The Russians have let their game slide and now they are in a desperate economic state.
Disregarding the world's current overall economy, what is your justification for this statement? They have no national debt, and that's more than many states on the globe can say.
Which economic sector heavily relies on Russian trade nowadays? I can't name any. Maybe some resources like gas to Europe but you can hardly call that a solid foundation. From what I can tell the overall state of Russia has been deteriorating for decades. Some rich cream on top that skims off profits from the international markets and the rest goes down the spiral of neglect and misconduct. I mean, in a country where human rights activists and lawyers get assassinated on an almost regular basis, where the (former) president leads a double life of communist megalomaniac and self-glorification media whore on the other, where foreign capital holds more power than anyone else... how could they NOT be in dire straits? The fact that Medwedew is a puppet, alone says enough about the Russian system.
I infer all this from some observations I made and you probably will show me figures that disprove my point. Thing is, what numbers can you trust coming out of that country? In my country, Germany, the statistics for unemployment are heavily doctored and we're talking about a huge economy here that shouldn't have to hide this. Yet, they're not truthful about their politics. Same in Russia, there also not truthful or democratic in their elections. Why would you accept their numbers to be true? You say they have no national debt. Really? Who says that? And how can they claim that when their population is obviously in a worse state than several years ago. I measure economic state by matter of influence and I can't recall one russian project or product in the last two decades that was in any way important to key markets world-wide. Given that 30 years ago they used to dominate some industries and where considered ahead at times the number of public interest in Russia has dwindled significantly after the Cold War. If that's not an indicator for desperate economic state I don't know what is.
You really hit Putin's raw nerves here. Outside their country their mafia tactics are practically worthless (granted, some actual mafia tactics and the one or other radioactive sushi bar here and there) so they have little to be proud of. The Russians have let their game slide and now they are in a desperate economic state.
I would have taken Putin by the word 20 years ago and they probably would have blasted IBM out of the country with some Lada-type Diesel computer made from scrap metal and old nuclear reactors. But today. Not so sure anymore. What kind of sensible person would actually install a Russian operating system (let alone entire hardware solution)? We know they write spyware, so do the Americans but does that bother us? No. Because at least the Americans hide their stuff at all costs. Russians are just too straight forward. "I don't like, I kill you.", "I want information, I break your legs, then encryption."
The course that Putin is sailing right now leads to the edge of the world and from his point of view... he's very close to actually falling over it. You can't keep your economy running only with gas extortion and MP3 sites.
In the grand scheme to make PC gaming the most miserable experience there is. Casual pirates love the PC, it's easy, fast and pretty reliable. Consoles... not so much. That's why they build their PC versions (or worse-ions) of well selling console titles so poorly that anyone will consider buying an Xbox before they think about PC gaming again.
I said it before and at times, I will have to say it again.
Actually, I think the GP was trying to make a joke, or otherwise be funny, when some stoner mods came along and upmodded him Insightful.
Actually, I wasn't. Weed makes your brain do random crazy stuff that your ordered thoughts would never amount to. There's a lot of crap in that experience and a lot of senseless laughter. On the other hand you get these once in a lifetime thought experiences that you would never have when you're not stoned. That's why it's called a "mind altering drug" because it makes you think stuff that is not that which you would normally come up with and you can gain new perspectives through that. It takes too long to explain that properly (although I could). Usually people who have never smoked Weed don't understand because they can't judgue/recognize the effects and implications of what this theory means.
Now go on, call me a mindless stoner. I don't mind. I'd rather be a stoner than being a mindless fuck like this VelvetFlamebait here without taking any drugs at all. Also, makes me write awesomely scored/. jokes so who wants me to stop now? As with comments, in moderation... everything is either Funny, Insightful or Informative. Pot is rather Flamebaity... that's why it usually lights up:)
WTF? Your argument makes no sense at all. If they're banning pot because it makes you think, then why aren't they banning, say, chess clubs? Or schools? Or any intellectual organisation? Or books?
I think you need to lay off the weed, man.
Chess is not exactly what you would call a "value altering" experience. While weed very well is. Schools like we mostly have them right now don't train anyone to think for themselves, at least not where I'm from. They teach you to stick to rules, to believe what authorities tell you and that you need a piece of paper declaring your abilities. Books by themselves don't make you smart or rebellious, the people who ban books usually have to read them first and does it affect them in any way? None of that makes for independent thinking.
Say about Weed what you will. Once you've smoked it for a while your opinion about things changes. Not in that lanky stoner "I don't give a fuck" way or any other ridiculous stereotype but re-evaluated like "Why the hell am I doing this job that I hate so much but never thought about". Trust me, I... uhm... conducted experiments.
Now we can download stoner movies, but can't smoke a reefer whilst watching them.
Stoner movies don't actually make you think about stuff that much, granted, pot does make you think incoherent stuff at times but it makes you think nonetheless. The last thing the UK government needs now is people thinking stuff about their incoherent policies.
If you want to cut out the middle man but still support your favorite artists, you can always download it from TPB and then donate $15 directly to Microsoft. Or go to one of their concerts and buy a t-shirt.
Naw man, they are sellout dude. They even upload their own shit to bittorrent and claim it's been pirated. That's uber lame. They totally... like... sold out after their XP Album. They already tried with that "Second Edition" they made for Win98 but it was more like "Lose98", amirite?
Which only has one version and a single standardized desktop environment. Clearly multiple versions of the same OS are bad.
Damn straight. Man I can tell you. I hate those upgrade packages all the time. Not to speak of the Service Packs. And whenever I look at someones desk I go "What it still works? Shit, you must be doing something wrong". To get a different version installed you have to do all this annoying clicking business and wait for the download bar and stuff... that's just not good user experience. I miss standing in line at the local tech-shack shelling out $250 for an update CD that I need to re-install along with my system. At least after that I knew what my PC was actually running... nothing that is.
Slashdot Mirror
I used the term propaganda because your arguments are in favor of these measures and you got your theory wrong from the outset. If you actually wanted to reduce the number of petty crime you wouldn't take DNA samples from every suspect but start actually punishing the big players. The shoplifter doesn't get his justification from the "common" lawlessness but from the lawlessness that is endorsed and furthered (apparently) by banking consortiae and such. How would the petty thief who steals for his drug habit or other social disadvantage see the reasoning behind broader law enforcement measures while the bankers who've burned billions of dollars walk free, wait, even get more money to throw away and are paid their bonusses? The perception of crime is not governed by how it is punished but with what you can actually get away with. Why doesn't the death penalty work? Explain to a shoplifter why he has to go to jail and give his DNA samples and the bank managers don't even have to show up in court. I appreciate your approach but I think it's flawed. If you see on TV that being a major asshole and a douchebag is perfectly acceptable and will earn you millions of dollars eventually there is absolutely no sense in trying to coerce the little guy on the street to believe in stronger law enforcement if society as a whole has adopted a corrupted agenda. That is what I think you meant by "surface level".
Then the next thing.
Uwe Boll? Are you serious? You consider that dork Hollywood? And let's not forget real quick that no one here gave him money
You accuse people of using QUOTE
mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments
And yet, you use ridiculous stereotypes of the commenters yourself. All I was trying to get across was that whatever nutcase conspiracy theory the tinfoil hat demographics comes up with there is something even worse going on in real life. Read a few things about the US government and the CIA and what their methods of control and "guidance" are. Read a book about the Gladio "stay behind" networks and look at some of the (recent) politically motivated wars and coups to install governments. Whatever you think people over-exaggerate I think you don't even see the tip of the iceberg yet.
in conclusion: pointing out that hollywood traffics in stereotypes on my part is propaganda. i need to accept hollywood stereotypes as representations of social truth
Where are you getting this crap? Nothing of what you call you "conclusion" was even implied in what I wrote. You say "people use hollywood stereotypes to make up crazy conspiracies". I say "hollywood uses real life as a stencil and creates it's characters after actual events, therefore some of the conspiracy theories are probably even worse in reality than they are depicted in movies". Talk about Watergate and the whole Iraq war story. No one knew about tortured prisoners and missing WMDs and so on, All just coincidence. I don't actually believe something that you made out of my words by completely ignoring the context. So cry if you have to. Laugh if you must. I certainly don't give a rat's ass because you're hopeless.
That's why I mentioned category c) in which your site obviously belongs. Thanks for the precise insight and proof that you've read my post...
So what's the problem with taking a little bit of spit?
You don't seem to realize that to leave your fingerprints you actually have to touch something. To have you face being photographed in some place you need to be there.
For your DNA to show up in some place you've never heard of you just have to sneeze on the Bus or scratch you head in the subway. Someone treads on one of the hairs that fell out of your nose or from your eyebrows and his shoe carries that to wherever. All of a sudden your DNA from the sneeze is found on the doorknob of a dealers apartement and one of your hairs is collected at the scene of a murder. Then YOU have to prove you've never been there despite the genetic evidence indisputably linked to you.
To me that's a LOT worse than fingerprints and mugshots. We spread our DNA involuntarily everywhere. Watch Gattaca then you'll start to understand.
No one knows, common house dust is mainly construed of dead skin particles and broken hairs. So basically you can pick up a can of evidence behind everyone's TV set. Sure there are limitations but once we start with this bogus nonsense there is hardly a way to go back.
i'm not saying that dna tracking should be supported, i'm just framing the reason why law enforcement is interested in dna. as opposed to the mindless "everyone in government wants to fascistically monitor your entire life just because they are stereotypical hollywood characters" theory of government and law enforcement, that you frequently see as the basis for comments
You got something wrong here, these hollywood characters are modeled after real-life people. Always were. There's stuff going on that a writer can't even make up. So don't be so sure, what you're writing here sounds like you want to make a reasonable point but it acts as diluted propaganda.
I personally am strongly opposed to governments that want to put their citizens in databases and monitor them according to irrelevant statistical details. I'm from Germany and that's why we got the Holocaust. Someone said "Let's sort this list via the "Religion" column" and then the shitstorm started.
Welcome to the New World Order ... where security means everyone's a suspect and constant supervision is the only way to achieve true freedom. Way to go.
... that's paranoia and being terrified right there. Terrorists Win. Let Osama bin Laden slip ... we don't need him anymore to errect our own Panopticon of terror.
... Highly Secure Freedom Detention Center.
The Terrorists have already won. Being terrorized means losing to terror, suspecting everyone and subjecting them to criminal prosecution no matter what they did
Pardon
Bump into someone in the subway, grab a few loose hairs from their sweater, drop at murder site.
... shit.
"Sir, how do you explain that we found your hair at the site of the murder?"
-Dunno, I'm riding the subway every day.
Mystery solved! Hurray! Oh wait
Seriously, why do we need Javascript to read articles or blogs? If your web apps are abusing Javascript to display ads, maybe it is time to consider not using web apps, or finding "friendlier" companies.
WE (as in users) don't need Javascript. I've been following the trends on more and more script code on websites for years now. If you really look at it most of the code is used to a) gather data about the user or b) display messages and ads to the user. There is a smaller category c) running useful code (like flash video players, online apps etc.).
The reality is that many companies base their revenue streams on these ad systems which include addthis, google-analytics and so forth. By simply blocking these you'll have a hassle free surfing experience but will have to occasionally activate some stuff to make your site work (which at times can be quite tedious finding out which one of the fifteen cryptic script hosters is responsible for the video player itself).
I sometimes worry if I deprive my sites of their ad revenue by blocking these shitty ads but then again I never voluntarily clicked, let alone bought something from, a banner or popup ad. As long as there are blinking, sound playing, window resizing, non-closable, code-executing messages that want to bum some attention I will block them. Firefox, Noscript. No more problems. I hate surfing on machines without those installed.
There ya go: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c4_1233598904
I had to watch 30 seconds of Super Bowl right inbetween my porn. That's so not cool Comcast.
When gamepads used to have two large immensely comfortable buttons and two analog sticks to chew on. Want girlie-hug now!
OK, next time I'll write "one" instead of you. All that ranting I feel depressed now :/
Let me explain how it works:
... Seinfeld wasn't the expensive part. The costly part was to produce a mock-up product that was only meant to distract customer and media attention for long enough for the disappointment to wear off into "I'll settle with average"-ism. I tip my hat to thee Microsoft. This time, I'm actually impressed. Or rather I would be, hadn't I been able to see through it.
Phase 1:
People have high expectations of your new product. They're fed up by the repetitive software releases you've done over the years and the lack of innovation from your part. Then you release a software that draws all the attention (or aggro, for WoW players). Once everybody has jumped either on the hater bandwagon or put up with the new, yet old, system you go to the next step. You use popular figures (like comedians) and one of your famous company people (maybe a nerd) to make advertisements that make people go "Really? What is this shit? I won't buy, but I know it's Delicious" to sidetrack even more of the critics.
Phase 2:
You announce your "true" new product (which was in development all along and was intended to be the successor to your old product line in any case) as the next big thing "coming soon". Since that newly developed system doesn't have enough new ideas to convince people to switch, and people are already confused by your current shitfest of a project you need to give them an incentive, that's what they needed Vista for. MS released Vista saying it will be their new OS and after the confusion had manifested and the expectations had been severely disappointed they start the next phase.
Phase 3:
You release an older polished release candidate of a less important branch of your true product as "the real deal". Then when people start questioning your abilities you go ahead and re-release your original new product line under a fancy new name. This way the expectations have already been lowered from the outset and the "new alternative" looks like a worthwhile contestant all of a sudden. Without Vista, the very same criticism that hit it, would have hit Windows 7 instead. Win7 looks like a slightly improved Vista, whereas Vista looked like a slightly improved XP. So, instead of making real big jumps and actually innovating you do two little intermediary steps and consumers will praise you for two entirely different new version of the operating system.
Phase 4:
Profit?
Seriously this, to me, sounds like an elaborate plan to con consumers into buying into the age old "fuck up and re-release" cycle that we have come to expect from Microsoft. A clever usage of market economics of perception rationale. If you serve people average products you will eventually go broke. But if you sell them really terrible products for a short period of time, rule out all options for downgrading and then start selling average products again you will be better off than by simply selling average crap to begin with.
They've employed a 300 Million Dollar ad strategy and let me tell you
Or am I doing it wrong?
The Russians have let their game slide and now they are in a desperate economic state.
Disregarding the world's current overall economy, what is your justification for this statement? They have no national debt, and that's more than many states on the globe can say.
Which economic sector heavily relies on Russian trade nowadays? I can't name any. Maybe some resources like gas to Europe but you can hardly call that a solid foundation. From what I can tell the overall state of Russia has been deteriorating for decades. Some rich cream on top that skims off profits from the international markets and the rest goes down the spiral of neglect and misconduct. I mean, in a country where human rights activists and lawyers get assassinated on an almost regular basis, where the (former) president leads a double life of communist megalomaniac and self-glorification media whore on the other, where foreign capital holds more power than anyone else ... how could they NOT be in dire straits? The fact that Medwedew is a puppet, alone says enough about the Russian system.
I infer all this from some observations I made and you probably will show me figures that disprove my point. Thing is, what numbers can you trust coming out of that country? In my country, Germany, the statistics for unemployment are heavily doctored and we're talking about a huge economy here that shouldn't have to hide this. Yet, they're not truthful about their politics. Same in Russia, there also not truthful or democratic in their elections. Why would you accept their numbers to be true? You say they have no national debt. Really? Who says that? And how can they claim that when their population is obviously in a worse state than several years ago. I measure economic state by matter of influence and I can't recall one russian project or product in the last two decades that was in any way important to key markets world-wide. Given that 30 years ago they used to dominate some industries and where considered ahead at times the number of public interest in Russia has dwindled significantly after the Cold War. If that's not an indicator for desperate economic state I don't know what is.
You really hit Putin's raw nerves here. Outside their country their mafia tactics are practically worthless (granted, some actual mafia tactics and the one or other radioactive sushi bar here and there) so they have little to be proud of. The Russians have let their game slide and now they are in a desperate economic state.
... he's very close to actually falling over it. You can't keep your economy running only with gas extortion and MP3 sites.
I would have taken Putin by the word 20 years ago and they probably would have blasted IBM out of the country with some Lada-type Diesel computer made from scrap metal and old nuclear reactors. But today. Not so sure anymore. What kind of sensible person would actually install a Russian operating system (let alone entire hardware solution)? We know they write spyware, so do the Americans but does that bother us? No. Because at least the Americans hide their stuff at all costs. Russians are just too straight forward. "I don't like, I kill you.", "I want information, I break your legs, then encryption."
The course that Putin is sailing right now leads to the edge of the world and from his point of view
In the grand scheme to make PC gaming the most miserable experience there is. Casual pirates love the PC, it's easy, fast and pretty reliable. Consoles ... not so much. That's why they build their PC versions (or worse-ions) of well selling console titles so poorly that anyone will consider buying an Xbox before they think about PC gaming again.
I said it before and at times, I will have to say it again.
Actually, I think the GP was trying to make a joke, or otherwise be funny, when some stoner mods came along and upmodded him Insightful.
Actually, I wasn't. Weed makes your brain do random crazy stuff that your ordered thoughts would never amount to. There's a lot of crap in that experience and a lot of senseless laughter. On the other hand you get these once in a lifetime thought experiences that you would never have when you're not stoned. That's why it's called a "mind altering drug" because it makes you think stuff that is not that which you would normally come up with and you can gain new perspectives through that. It takes too long to explain that properly (although I could). Usually people who have never smoked Weed don't understand because they can't judgue/recognize the effects and implications of what this theory means.
/. jokes so who wants me to stop now? As with comments, in moderation ... everything is either Funny, Insightful or Informative. Pot is rather Flamebaity ... that's why it usually lights up :)
Now go on, call me a mindless stoner. I don't mind. I'd rather be a stoner than being a mindless fuck like this VelvetFlamebait here without taking any drugs at all. Also, makes me write awesomely scored
WTF? Your argument makes no sense at all. If they're banning pot because it makes you think, then why aren't they banning, say, chess clubs? Or schools? Or any intellectual organisation? Or books?
I think you need to lay off the weed, man.
Chess is not exactly what you would call a "value altering" experience. While weed very well is. Schools like we mostly have them right now don't train anyone to think for themselves, at least not where I'm from. They teach you to stick to rules, to believe what authorities tell you and that you need a piece of paper declaring your abilities. Books by themselves don't make you smart or rebellious, the people who ban books usually have to read them first and does it affect them in any way? None of that makes for independent thinking.
... uhm ... conducted experiments.
Say about Weed what you will. Once you've smoked it for a while your opinion about things changes. Not in that lanky stoner "I don't give a fuck" way or any other ridiculous stereotype but re-evaluated like "Why the hell am I doing this job that I hate so much but never thought about". Trust me, I
Now we can download stoner movies, but can't smoke a reefer whilst watching them.
Stoner movies don't actually make you think about stuff that much, granted, pot does make you think incoherent stuff at times but it makes you think nonetheless. The last thing the UK government needs now is people thinking stuff about their incoherent policies.
Shia LaBeouf as Rick Deckard
Mylie Cyrus as Rachael
Steve Carrell as Roy Batty
Michael Myers as Bryant
Shot by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Soundtrack by The Jonas Brothers.
If you want to cut out the middle man but still support your favorite artists, you can always download it from TPB and then donate $15 directly to Microsoft. Or go to one of their concerts and buy a t-shirt.
Naw man, they are sellout dude. They even upload their own shit to bittorrent and claim it's been pirated. That's uber lame. They totally... like ... sold out after their XP Album. They already tried with that "Second Edition" they made for Win98 but it was more like "Lose98", amirite?
Which only has one version and a single standardized desktop environment. Clearly multiple versions of the same OS are bad.
Damn straight. Man I can tell you. I hate those upgrade packages all the time. Not to speak of the Service Packs. And whenever I look at someones desk I go "What it still works? Shit, you must be doing something wrong". To get a different version installed you have to do all this annoying clicking business and wait for the download bar and stuff ... that's just not good user experience. I miss standing in line at the local tech-shack shelling out $250 for an update CD that I need to re-install along with my system. At least after that I knew what my PC was actually running ... nothing that is.
He left.
And handed the rudder over to this guy
I'd mod you "Funny" just for posting that link on Slashdot ... then again I don't have any mod points just now and by "Funny" I meant "Flamebait".