//try //{ tabs.sync(); //} //catch //{ //printf("Oops, cloud sync failed. Terribly sorry, Captain. We'll fail gracefully and just make do without."); //} // James, I fucking told you not to use try-catch statements, they're too slow. The code works and a cloud failure is basically impossible (five nines, baby) so just chill, will you? // P.S./* comment */ is for chumps.
All you need to do to stop the drone is bring out one kid, say about 9 or 10. Just have them stand around, doing nothing.
Headline reads as follows: "HI-TECH DRONE CAPTURES HI-DEF IMAGES OF CHILDREN FROM THE AIR, STREAMING OVER THE INTERNET"
Creation and distribution of child pornography, because these days almost any picture of a child is CP. The drone operators will be in Gitmo by sundown.
Speaking as someone who writes and self publishes books for a living (see sig), this is an insane judgement. $150,000 per movie? Ten movies?
I don't know how this could possibly be considered fair. Even if the guy 100% did everything that he is accused of, what's the real cost of his actions? If each film is, say, $10, then this means he cost the porno company 15,000 sales, per movie.
The problem is it just doesn't add up. Something free isn't the same value as something paid. I've given away approximately 20,000 books on Amazon, but I've sold about 1,000. I didn't lose 19,000 sales.
Every retailer knows if you give away free samples or even free products you're encouraging people to come back. To buy your new offerings. People are creatures of habit and once we like something we want more of it. This massive giveaway probably did wonders for their signup rates.
But I understand that putting *every* piece of your product online is bad, and making them permanently and easily available is damaging to sales especially in the short term.
But that much damage? 1.5 million bucks total? This is ludicrous. It's insane. There are punishments for real, genuine crimes with real, lasting harm to a person that are less than that. How is he supposed to pay?
So as a media producer, I think that bankrupting someone for sharing ten films online is completely immoral. It's just wrong.
My understanding is that the thinking goes like this.
Sure, there are newer processors that claim to fit the bill. But space hasn't changed so much since the Apollo days that we need all new processors; by and large anything that needs "heavy lifting" CPU wise can be transmitted back to Earth. For unmanned probes, there's very little demand for high speed CPU tasks that can't be offloaded to Earth. And even if there was, when your latency back to your operator is about 14 minutes (with an extra 14 to receive further instructions, plus the time it takes to interpret the previous data set, determine new instructions, then program those instructions), that's a lot of down time to work on various tasks.
The Mars rover CPUs, I imagine, spend the vast majority of their time idling.
However... the old stuff works. It has its faults and flaws, sure, but they're extremely well known and documented. You can work around them. You have the old grognards that have been kicking around since Apollo who know every damn thing about them. They're risky, sure, but it's a managed, controlled, limited and understood risk. But new processors are *new*. You lose that element of certainty, and the CPU is the heart of a probe. You lose it, you're fucked.
You're trusting the mission, a mission that costs billions of bucks, to a new, untested device that hasn't been field tested, hasn't got that certainty, and *you just don't need*.
I'm as much a fan of privacy as anyone else on Slashdot, but this is different.
There's no expectation of privacy on a twitter message nor should there be. Further, this is evidence of a crime. No, it's not a serious crime (murder etc), but if the claim made by the prosecution is shown to be valid then it is a crime. The tweets will probably do that. If they exonerated him he would present them himself I'd wager, so in all likelihood they do not.
You're missing the point of what people mean when they say "if you have nothing to hide...". They're not saying we need to stop legitimate, specific, limited, manually approved warrants from being executed with the aim of finding the truth of a legal matter. Instead, we need to stop illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not (as this guy is) under genuine suspicion of committing crimes.
A very important difference.
If you have a problem with the crimes, that's different. Totally different. Immoral crimes exist and one of the ways to change them is to break them. This guy obviously has principles and, you know what, good on him. The problem is, you should be prepared to be punished for civil disobediance no matter how legitimate (nobody who goes into this kind of thing should expect a trouble free ride) and you certainly shouldn't co-op the cause of legitimate privacy concerns to protect yourself when you do.
I wouldn't be worried about the outrage of Christians from the Bible getting caught up in this law (it's certainly possible though). They'll mostly just be angry and not comply with the law (not that anyone would really).
I'd be more worried about them banning the Koran.
After all, Mohammad the Prophet had a wife named Aisha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha) who was betrothed to him at 6 or 7 and the union was consummated at age 9. The text even explicitly says that she was still playing with her toys when all this was going on.
Now, such marriages were not seen as improper in a historical context, but hey. This law is specifically about removing all text, irrespective of context, since it might "give people ideas". Never mind that books like The Lonely Bones don't glorify child rape at all (the movie was much, much more sanitized than the book). It could give people ideas!
So sure. Go ahead and tell people you're banning the Koran because it encourages paedophiles. That seems like a safe thing to do.
My first though: "Oh that is so cool! Wow, we're learning more about our world every day. I welcome this new discovery and hope to learn more!"
My second thought: "... Oh God. The creationists. The *creationists*. They're going to read this (repeated through a third party "science" website like Answers in Genesis), throw back their heads and shout, "Therefore, Jesus! Therefore JESUS! Science is wrong again! The Earth really is 6,000 years old! Radiometric dating is peudoscience invented by liberals and now we have proof!"
As I get older I want to tinker with my machines less and I want them to just work more. That means that my home setup has gone from a half dozen servers all running a variety of Windows and Linux/BSD operating systems to one simple desktop with ESXi. All the VMs are backed up automatically, they're upgraded automatically (to stable versions -- I don't care about bleeding edge anymore), and they basically don't need to be touched for months and months and months. It means my desktop computer has gone from multibooting various flavours of Linux with Wine to just... Windows 7.
Why?
I just want things to work.
I don't want to spend hours trying to get Wine to run World of Warcraft better, I just buy a new video card and be done with it. I use an iPhone because its working is binary; either it works perfectly, more or less easily, or it doesn't work at all and I'm not tempted by some half-broken package that if I tinker with it enough will be mostly stable (this version). It just works or it doesn't, and there's nothing an iPhone can't do that I care enough to go Android. Who really care if you can't telnet to your phone? Really?
Windows 7 just works. My iPhone just works. That's what I want my machines to do.
After all, if you work for your machines, who owns who?
Sounds pretty crappy. My first thought was, "It's basically being paid to look at the very worst threads on/b/. And basically being unable to stop unless you want to be jobless."
They better have paid well, because while I consider myself pretty desensitized to a lot of things there's some stuff that still gets me (mainly involving permanent bodily harm like the Lamborghini Tool Pull from Jackass 3D).
Australia (where I am) Canada The United Kingdom Most of Europe, for that matter South Africa New Zealand Singapore Japan
And that's just off the top of my head, with a bit of googling to back it up. You know, basically every single first world country except the United States, who recently were in a massive recession and are looking to head that way again.
The main goal of Anonymous, if such a thing can be strictly defined, is to do things that are funny.
The reactions of offended people are often funny, in a warped way, especially when people display stunning illiteracy or are venerating someone just because they are dead (see tribute pages for utter douchebags like Lee Hotti). Sometimes they do things that cross the line into "Dude, not funny", but that's the nature of a group whose membership is so loosely defined.
For every successful raid or whatever, there are hundreds more that are suggested and shouted down ("No we won't raid your ex-girlfriend's Facebook page, because we're not your personal army").
The only things that most observers can determine about the moral compass of Anonymous is that they really, really hate anyone hurting cats.
I'm not sure why this big push towards "the One True Airframe" exists in current aircraft design philosophy.
I'm a big fan of cheap, specialized airframes which are given one specific goal and then features are "added on". For example, take one of my favourite aircraft, the A-10 Warthog.
It's one-sentence goal is: "Easily destroy any armoured vehicle that the US could conceivably encounter within the next 50 years."
Which it does. Additional features it has:
- Extremely tough and rugged. - Very long duration, able to loiter and provide cover for extended durations. - Cheap in construction and simple to maintain. - Minimally capable in missile-based air-air combat (it's not a dogfighter but it's not helpless either, like an AC-130 is). - The A-10's cannon is effective against infantry (duh), buildings, helicopters and small naval assets. - Able to deliver complex munitions (cluster bombs, air dropped mines, dumb bombs, smart missiles, etc). - Able to function in electronic warfare/forward command roles. - Fast enough to get to combat locations fairly quickly (subsonic, but still jet powered and fast compared to things like the AC-130 Spectre).
All of which is good, but are all of these things are secondary to its primary goal; blow the absolute piss and shit out of anything with treads or wheels. If it can't do that, the rest is fairly much window dressing.
The A-10's a perfect example how we should build combat aircraft. An air-supremacy fighter should be built with the goal of "Destroy any fighter aircraft the US could encounter within X years" and all other considerations secondary. A bomber's mission should be "Carry the maximum amount of ordnance to any location the US could want to bomb within X years", a spy plane's (mostly replaced by sats these days) should be "Take photographs of any location in the entire world without being detected or destroyed", etc.
Another way to look at it is: "A soldier should carry a knife for eating, a sword for dueling, a dagger for murdering, a claymore for horses, a razor for shaving, a bowie for skinning, a throwing knife for throwing."
Why are we trying to make The One True Edged Weapon, which if such a thing were built would be too sharp for eating, too short for dueling, too long for murdering, too short for horses, too dangerous for shaving, too awkward for skinning and too heavy to throw? (and cost $27,000,000...)
Of course not. The point was NOT to endlessly funnel more money towards the RIAA, the MPAA and their respective legal teams, but to take the modest and humble earnings from lawsuits and return all of it to the artistssshhhahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa.
This has been well known from the start. For the RIAA/MPAA/etc, the recording artists are *resources*. Like lumber, or oil, or minerals. Just something to be mined and discarded when it's of no further value. You don't see mining companies making sure their mines are well taken care of, do you? Or taking the profits from the sale of the minerals and pouring the money into old, abandoned mine shafts?
Of course not. Artists are resources to be consumed.
Suing copyright infringers is really just fucked. It's like if I, as a citizen, started sending letters to people for jay-walking; I'd sue them in civil court for $5,000 (with photograph evidence obtained legally), or I'd settle for $50. Just sign the papers, fill in your bank details, then we'll deduct the money from your account.
Is that legal? In this specific example, probably not, unless I *owned* the street. Let's say for a moment that I do.
Is it immoral? I'd consider it immoral.
I publish all my books DRM free and I don't give two fucking shits if people download them illegally. Every time one of these fucking "sue the piraters FOR THE ARTISTS", I always say... "Where's my share?" I own the rights to books. I publish them electronically. They get "pirated". Why shouldn't I get free money for it?
Well?
Well?
The real reason is, obviously, the MPAA/RIAA are cunts and the idea that they're doing this for the artists in any way is completely retarded.
Software has dramatically outpaced hardware over the last decade. The lowest end PCs available for purchase can easily run Windows 7, especially if given a few extra gigs of RAM (by far the cheapest component) or given an SSD (by far the slowest component).
End users will never, ever notice this speed because I've never waited for Windows 7 to render text. Ever.
By all means, software speedups are more than welcome and it's good that Microsoft have avoided the typical bloat that many have suspect Intel pushes, but the most important battlefields by far for Windows 8 acceptance will be stability, ease of use, compatibility with legacy applications and hardware support.
Stability is in doubt if there's big changes, which there looks like there will be.
Ease of use... Metro has been copping a lot of flak from the technical user camp, but we don't know what Joe User will think of it yet. In any event, it's a lot of retraining, which is not a good sign.
Legacy application and hardware support will probably be equal to Windows 7, with a loss in application support and a gain in hardware support.
TL;DR: Well done, but I hope this isn't *all* Microsoft have when it comes to Windows 8.
Normally bills that get rejected due to public outcry become riders on other, more socially acceptable bills.
I though it'd be the "Love Your Nation Act: Money For Bridges, and Orphans, and Puppies, and ACTA, and Rape Crisis Centres" act.
You wouldn't vote against money for bridges, orphans and puppies would you? And what are you, some kind of sick rapist who wants your victims to suffer?
The ACTA/etc folks are just like that sleazy guy in the bar.
They have "negs", designed to make you feel bad and insecure about yourself. Piracy is costing the American economy billions. You're the most beautiful woman/man in this bar. You wouldn't steal a handbag. Of course I have no STIs. You wouldn't steal a car...
They'll buy you drinks and they'll tell you any lie you want to hear. They're an astronaut. They drive a Porche. The wording of CETA is totally different from ACTA.
They'll lie out their arses no matter how many times you say no, because all they need is one yes and they've fucked you.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the best part about safe search. "Sorry, we couldn't find what you were looking for. He's a hot chick's tits."
//try /* comment */ is for chumps.
//{
tabs.sync();
//}
//catch
//{
//printf("Oops, cloud sync failed. Terribly sorry, Captain. We'll fail gracefully and just make do without.");
//}
// James, I fucking told you not to use try-catch statements, they're too slow. The code works and a cloud failure is basically impossible (five nines, baby) so just chill, will you?
// P.S.
Okay, I get it. Art is subjective. Sometimes someone's "best movie ever" is another's pukeorama. I know this.
But, no.
Just no.
You are obviously not thinking creatively enough.
All you need to do to stop the drone is bring out one kid, say about 9 or 10. Just have them stand around, doing nothing.
Headline reads as follows: "HI-TECH DRONE CAPTURES HI-DEF IMAGES OF CHILDREN FROM THE AIR, STREAMING OVER THE INTERNET"
Creation and distribution of child pornography, because these days almost any picture of a child is CP. The drone operators will be in Gitmo by sundown.
Speaking as someone who writes and self publishes books for a living (see sig), this is an insane judgement. $150,000 per movie? Ten movies?
I don't know how this could possibly be considered fair. Even if the guy 100% did everything that he is accused of, what's the real cost of his actions? If each film is, say, $10, then this means he cost the porno company 15,000 sales, per movie.
The problem is it just doesn't add up. Something free isn't the same value as something paid. I've given away approximately 20,000 books on Amazon, but I've sold about 1,000. I didn't lose 19,000 sales.
Every retailer knows if you give away free samples or even free products you're encouraging people to come back. To buy your new offerings. People are creatures of habit and once we like something we want more of it. This massive giveaway probably did wonders for their signup rates.
But I understand that putting *every* piece of your product online is bad, and making them permanently and easily available is damaging to sales especially in the short term.
But that much damage? 1.5 million bucks total? This is ludicrous. It's insane. There are punishments for real, genuine crimes with real, lasting harm to a person that are less than that. How is he supposed to pay?
So as a media producer, I think that bankrupting someone for sharing ten films online is completely immoral. It's just wrong.
My understanding is that the thinking goes like this.
Sure, there are newer processors that claim to fit the bill. But space hasn't changed so much since the Apollo days that we need all new processors; by and large anything that needs "heavy lifting" CPU wise can be transmitted back to Earth. For unmanned probes, there's very little demand for high speed CPU tasks that can't be offloaded to Earth. And even if there was, when your latency back to your operator is about 14 minutes (with an extra 14 to receive further instructions, plus the time it takes to interpret the previous data set, determine new instructions, then program those instructions), that's a lot of down time to work on various tasks.
The Mars rover CPUs, I imagine, spend the vast majority of their time idling.
However... the old stuff works. It has its faults and flaws, sure, but they're extremely well known and documented. You can work around them. You have the old grognards that have been kicking around since Apollo who know every damn thing about them. They're risky, sure, but it's a managed, controlled, limited and understood risk. But new processors are *new*. You lose that element of certainty, and the CPU is the heart of a probe. You lose it, you're fucked.
You're trusting the mission, a mission that costs billions of bucks, to a new, untested device that hasn't been field tested, hasn't got that certainty, and *you just don't need*.
I'm as much a fan of privacy as anyone else on Slashdot, but this is different.
There's no expectation of privacy on a twitter message nor should there be. Further, this is evidence of a crime. No, it's not a serious crime (murder etc), but if the claim made by the prosecution is shown to be valid then it is a crime. The tweets will probably do that. If they exonerated him he would present them himself I'd wager, so in all likelihood they do not.
You're missing the point of what people mean when they say "if you have nothing to hide...". They're not saying we need to stop legitimate, specific, limited, manually approved warrants from being executed with the aim of finding the truth of a legal matter. Instead, we need to stop illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not (as this guy is) under genuine suspicion of committing crimes.
A very important difference.
If you have a problem with the crimes, that's different. Totally different. Immoral crimes exist and one of the ways to change them is to break them. This guy obviously has principles and, you know what, good on him. The problem is, you should be prepared to be punished for civil disobediance no matter how legitimate (nobody who goes into this kind of thing should expect a trouble free ride) and you certainly shouldn't co-op the cause of legitimate privacy concerns to protect yourself when you do.
I wouldn't be worried about the outrage of Christians from the Bible getting caught up in this law (it's certainly possible though). They'll mostly just be angry and not comply with the law (not that anyone would really).
I'd be more worried about them banning the Koran.
After all, Mohammad the Prophet had a wife named Aisha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha) who was betrothed to him at 6 or 7 and the union was consummated at age 9. The text even explicitly says that she was still playing with her toys when all this was going on.
Now, such marriages were not seen as improper in a historical context, but hey. This law is specifically about removing all text, irrespective of context, since it might "give people ideas". Never mind that books like The Lonely Bones don't glorify child rape at all (the movie was much, much more sanitized than the book). It could give people ideas!
So sure. Go ahead and tell people you're banning the Koran because it encourages paedophiles. That seems like a safe thing to do.
As an Australian author (book in sig)... Ow! (truth hurts?)
My first though: "Oh that is so cool! Wow, we're learning more about our world every day. I welcome this new discovery and hope to learn more!"
My second thought: "... Oh God. The creationists. The *creationists*. They're going to read this (repeated through a third party "science" website like Answers in Genesis), throw back their heads and shout, "Therefore, Jesus! Therefore JESUS! Science is wrong again! The Earth really is 6,000 years old! Radiometric dating is peudoscience invented by liberals and now we have proof!"
Fucking Christ.
I've got karma to burn, so here goes.
As I get older I want to tinker with my machines less and I want them to just work more. That means that my home setup has gone from a half dozen servers all running a variety of Windows and Linux/BSD operating systems to one simple desktop with ESXi. All the VMs are backed up automatically, they're upgraded automatically (to stable versions -- I don't care about bleeding edge anymore), and they basically don't need to be touched for months and months and months. It means my desktop computer has gone from multibooting various flavours of Linux with Wine to just... Windows 7.
Why?
I just want things to work.
I don't want to spend hours trying to get Wine to run World of Warcraft better, I just buy a new video card and be done with it. I use an iPhone because its working is binary; either it works perfectly, more or less easily, or it doesn't work at all and I'm not tempted by some half-broken package that if I tinker with it enough will be mostly stable (this version). It just works or it doesn't, and there's nothing an iPhone can't do that I care enough to go Android. Who really care if you can't telnet to your phone? Really?
Windows 7 just works. My iPhone just works. That's what I want my machines to do.
After all, if you work for your machines, who owns who?
Sounds pretty crappy. My first thought was, "It's basically being paid to look at the very worst threads on /b/. And basically being unable to stop unless you want to be jobless."
They better have paid well, because while I consider myself pretty desensitized to a lot of things there's some stuff that still gets me (mainly involving permanent bodily harm like the Lamborghini Tool Pull from Jackass 3D).
Australia (where I am)
Canada
The United Kingdom
Most of Europe, for that matter
South Africa
New Zealand
Singapore
Japan
And that's just off the top of my head, with a bit of googling to back it up. You know, basically every single first world country except the United States, who recently were in a massive recession and are looking to head that way again.
Came here to say this. Glad to see someone beat me to it.
The main goal of Anonymous, if such a thing can be strictly defined, is to do things that are funny.
The reactions of offended people are often funny, in a warped way, especially when people display stunning illiteracy or are venerating someone just because they are dead (see tribute pages for utter douchebags like Lee Hotti). Sometimes they do things that cross the line into "Dude, not funny", but that's the nature of a group whose membership is so loosely defined.
For every successful raid or whatever, there are hundreds more that are suggested and shouted down ("No we won't raid your ex-girlfriend's Facebook page, because we're not your personal army").
The only things that most observers can determine about the moral compass of Anonymous is that they really, really hate anyone hurting cats.
I'm not sure why this big push towards "the One True Airframe" exists in current aircraft design philosophy.
I'm a big fan of cheap, specialized airframes which are given one specific goal and then features are "added on". For example, take one of my favourite aircraft, the A-10 Warthog.
It's one-sentence goal is: "Easily destroy any armoured vehicle that the US could conceivably encounter within the next 50 years."
Which it does. Additional features it has:
- Extremely tough and rugged.
- Very long duration, able to loiter and provide cover for extended durations.
- Cheap in construction and simple to maintain.
- Minimally capable in missile-based air-air combat (it's not a dogfighter but it's not helpless either, like an AC-130 is).
- The A-10's cannon is effective against infantry (duh), buildings, helicopters and small naval assets.
- Able to deliver complex munitions (cluster bombs, air dropped mines, dumb bombs, smart missiles, etc).
- Able to function in electronic warfare/forward command roles.
- Fast enough to get to combat locations fairly quickly (subsonic, but still jet powered and fast compared to things like the AC-130 Spectre).
All of which is good, but are all of these things are secondary to its primary goal; blow the absolute piss and shit out of anything with treads or wheels. If it can't do that, the rest is fairly much window dressing.
The A-10's a perfect example how we should build combat aircraft. An air-supremacy fighter should be built with the goal of "Destroy any fighter aircraft the US could encounter within X years" and all other considerations secondary. A bomber's mission should be "Carry the maximum amount of ordnance to any location the US could want to bomb within X years", a spy plane's (mostly replaced by sats these days) should be "Take photographs of any location in the entire world without being detected or destroyed", etc.
Another way to look at it is: "A soldier should carry a knife for eating, a sword for dueling, a dagger for murdering, a claymore for horses, a razor for shaving, a bowie for skinning, a throwing knife for throwing."
Why are we trying to make The One True Edged Weapon, which if such a thing were built would be too sharp for eating, too short for dueling, too long for murdering, too short for horses, too dangerous for shaving, too awkward for skinning and too heavy to throw? (and cost $27,000,000...)
Of course not. The point was NOT to endlessly funnel more money towards the RIAA, the MPAA and their respective legal teams, but to take the modest and humble earnings from lawsuits and return all of it to the artistssshhhahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa.
Man I crack myself up sometimes.
This has been well known from the start. For the RIAA/MPAA/etc, the recording artists are *resources*. Like lumber, or oil, or minerals. Just something to be mined and discarded when it's of no further value. You don't see mining companies making sure their mines are well taken care of, do you? Or taking the profits from the sale of the minerals and pouring the money into old, abandoned mine shafts?
Of course not. Artists are resources to be consumed.
Suing copyright infringers is really just fucked. It's like if I, as a citizen, started sending letters to people for jay-walking; I'd sue them in civil court for $5,000 (with photograph evidence obtained legally), or I'd settle for $50. Just sign the papers, fill in your bank details, then we'll deduct the money from your account.
Is that legal? In this specific example, probably not, unless I *owned* the street. Let's say for a moment that I do.
Is it immoral? I'd consider it immoral.
I publish all my books DRM free and I don't give two fucking shits if people download them illegally. Every time one of these fucking "sue the piraters FOR THE ARTISTS", I always say... "Where's my share?" I own the rights to books. I publish them electronically. They get "pirated". Why shouldn't I get free money for it?
Well?
Well?
The real reason is, obviously, the MPAA/RIAA are cunts and the idea that they're doing this for the artists in any way is completely retarded.
Software has dramatically outpaced hardware over the last decade. The lowest end PCs available for purchase can easily run Windows 7, especially if given a few extra gigs of RAM (by far the cheapest component) or given an SSD (by far the slowest component).
End users will never, ever notice this speed because I've never waited for Windows 7 to render text. Ever.
By all means, software speedups are more than welcome and it's good that Microsoft have avoided the typical bloat that many have suspect Intel pushes, but the most important battlefields by far for Windows 8 acceptance will be stability, ease of use, compatibility with legacy applications and hardware support.
Stability is in doubt if there's big changes, which there looks like there will be.
Ease of use... Metro has been copping a lot of flak from the technical user camp, but we don't know what Joe User will think of it yet. In any event, it's a lot of retraining, which is not a good sign.
Legacy application and hardware support will probably be equal to Windows 7, with a loss in application support and a gain in hardware support.
TL;DR: Well done, but I hope this isn't *all* Microsoft have when it comes to Windows 8.
I sometimes think Slashdot needs a "Like" button for posts like this but then I consider the broader implications.
But sometimes... sometimes, in my dreams, I imagine it.
Normally bills that get rejected due to public outcry become riders on other, more socially acceptable bills.
I though it'd be the "Love Your Nation Act: Money For Bridges, and Orphans, and Puppies, and ACTA, and Rape Crisis Centres" act.
You wouldn't vote against money for bridges, orphans and puppies would you? And what are you, some kind of sick rapist who wants your victims to suffer?
Oh and take it from me, those ACTA guys say they'll call you in the morning and do breakfast but they never call. :'(
The ACTA/etc folks are just like that sleazy guy in the bar.
They have "negs", designed to make you feel bad and insecure about yourself. Piracy is costing the American economy billions. You're the most beautiful woman/man in this bar. You wouldn't steal a handbag. Of course I have no STIs. You wouldn't steal a car...
They'll buy you drinks and they'll tell you any lie you want to hear. They're an astronaut. They drive a Porche. The wording of CETA is totally different from ACTA.
They'll lie out their arses no matter how many times you say no, because all they need is one yes and they've fucked you.
Neither did Hitler!
ACTA is like a sleezy guy trying to pick you up in a bar.
You can tell him no six hundred times and he'll keep coming back, because all it takes is one yes and he's fucked you.