I think these common events, ones which we have learned to ignore and dismiss as irrelevant abberations in our senses, that likely contributed to the rise of religions. I mean, in a world where you have no better explanation, maybe that voice in the woods was the elves, or the spirit of the woods?
It was the creative thinkers that came up with all the mythical explanations in the first place. The rest just shrugged and said, "Elves, is it? Sounds about right to me!" Now if only our distant ancestors had been more biased against all those ancient, creative, myth makers we might have been less steeped in ignorance and superstition!
This sounds to me like the beginning of a big push for federal dollars by the incumbent phone companies, because if you get rid of POTS you're going to have to spend billions of dollars getting the remote areas of the country wired for IP/cellular, and looking at past experience the phone companies sure aren't going to pay for it.
Corporate welfare though it might be, I can only see this as good thing in the long run. Better cellular coverage and more internet access? If the government is going to waste the money on something anyway I'd rather have it on improving communications infrastructure than feeding the insatiable defense industry boondoggle machine.
Actually if you've been paying attention Microsoft have been making Windows Phones (Or at least a portable OS for phones) for over 10 years it's apple that jumped on the me too bandwagon.
Yeah, and they were some of the most difficult to use with a patently terrible interface. My girlfriend had a phone with winPhone 6.1, and I cringed every time she whipped out the stylus to click on whatever teeny tiny button. Even my old iphone 3gs was better than that, and it was a piece of crap too.
You're missing the point. The point isn't that legalizing prostitution would allow Joe Q. Public to visit high class escorts, rather that despite prostitution being illegal, politicians and high-ranking government officials frequent said escorts without repercussion. Joe Q. Public, on the other hand, would be publicly humiliated and subjected to the full weight of the anti-prostitution laws.
The first reply brought up an equally valid point. These high-ranking officials need to fear prosecution if they act in a manner un-befitting a politician. That is, doing things the elite criminal overlords (Wall Street bankers) don't like.
So if the events in the story are not the actions of an actual, or even burgeoning police state, what are they? A few bad actors in high government posts? The idea that a police state requires mass murder is simplistic. A police state is one in which the police, as the instruments of authorities have carte blanche to do whatever they want in order to maintain "law and order."
It may be somewhat alarmist to call the US a police state just yet, but denying that these are police state actions and that they will eventually lead to murdering dissidents and all the other sundry qualities of past police states is foolish.
I agree, I've always thought that minecraft was a great sandbox but they forgot to put an actual game in there anyplace. A handful of mobs, awkward combat, anemic equipment progression... it can be great fun to build grand structures but it just seems like every big idea they had to add to the game ended up being half assed leading to a constant nagging feeling that the game just isn't living up to its potential. I've always kind of wished they'd just open source the thing and let the community create something awesome.
The guards in Assassin's Creed 2+ will do that sometimes. After watching you methodically eliminate their compatriots they'll turn tail and flee. I almost never let them go, especially if they started the fight in the first place. A well aimed two-handed sword thrown into their back does the trick quite nicely. And makes me giggle.
The Department of Transportation is an executive office too, can they tell the NSA what to do? How about the Department of Agriculture? No? It's almost like there are multiple departments in the Executive branch, each responsible for different things! I know, crazy right??
More like spoiled offspring. The clueless rich parents giving their kids whatever they want and endlessly getting them out of trouble is a far more appropriate metaphor. Calling the USA Israel's "pet" or "bitch" give far too much power/credit to Israel. To hear them tell it, without the US as an ally they'd be overrun by the Arab Hordes in no time flat. Without big daddy USA's riches, weapons and what have you where would Israel be then?
I interpreted that the GP as meaning that as it is the government eliminating privacy there would be an implicit asymmetry in the access of such information. That is, the government, or more properly its agents, would have unprecedented access into the personal lives of, well, everybody. The statement "If there is no privacy the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny" does not imply that absolutely all privacy is removed, rather, the privacy of ordinary citizens is removed and those who can pay or otherwise maintain control of their own privacy, i.e. by brute force, have a grossly unbalanced amount of power and tyranny results from the malicious use of that power.
I mean really, if the NSA can break all encryption what exactly leads to the conclusion that everyone can do it? Even in the event that some clever crackers find and exploit whatever backdoors the NSA had placed in some encryption method most people would not have the resources or skills to intercept enough of other peoples traffic to make any real use of that ability. We've been hearing about how the NSA basically stores all, or nearly all, internet traffic. Do you have a tap at ATT&T as well?
So because there are scary bad men out there the government should be able to do whatever the fuck it wants to be able to catch them? Even if that includes massively violating the privacy of every citizen (never know who's a scary bad man!!) in the country? Even if it includes building a massive database filled with who the fuck knows what that never, ever, gets erased? You know how they say the internet forgets nothing? This is even worse, since random fruit loops on the internet don't have access to your phone records, your banking records, your phone calls, your location and every niggling little detail of your entire life! If you think it's bad that/b/ can access something stupid you said on your blog and troll you even if you delete it, just wait until some scary bad men, I mean trusted public servants, get ahold of all that juicy personal information that those stalwart do-gooders of the NSA put together for them, they'll have a field day! Accidently piss off some bureaucrat at the DMV? He'll just call his cousin at the Ministry of Love and they'll whip up some charges doubleplusquick then off to the Re-education centers (actually, that's too expensive, off to the work camps, more than likely).
If you really think it's just "metadata" you're deluded. All this stuff that's coming out used to sound like the fever dreams of the loony fringe, and god damn does it suck having to listen to them smugly say "We told you so."
...You have practically no chance of stopping scummy assholes who happen to belong to one party from getting into power.
And how's that working out in the US? We arguably already vote for parties anyway, most people don't vote in primaries so it pretty much comes down to voting either R or D. But the countries with proportional representation shouldn't be smug, it isn't as if their governments aren't corrupt and incompetent as well. At least they have 6 corrupt or useless parties instead of only two.
Can't disagree with the fact that it may push some to continue drinking, however I think you'd find that a large proportion of those were somehow compelled to attend meetings/participate in AA. No matter how cultish it may appear, you'd be hard pressed to show that AA itself is aggressively trying to increase its membership by evangelism or other tactics, and is therefore directly causing harm to these people. Instead, the court systems, regardless of what caused them to believe so, have determined that 12-step group attendance should be required of individuals convicted of various alcohol/substance abuse related charges. So a third party is directing individuals to attend AA meetings against their will and the AA groups themselves can't stop these people from attending, even if some members would be happier if the "sheet signers" weren't there at all. Some times it works: I've heard numerous stories about people who were at one time forced to attend meetings, who resented it and usually continued drinking while they did it, who eventually embraced the AA way and quit drinking. Haven't heard the opposite, more than likely for the simple reason that those people quit going to meetings altogether and either slide into oblivion or quit some other way.
Sorry, kind of got to rambling there. My point is, that the fact that the AA message may cause some to continue, or even worsen, their using isn't the fault of the AA groups themselves. The book will even tell you, if you've got a prospective member and they're particularly opposed to the idea of AA, leave them alone and let them continue their destructive behaviour, but always be there to help them if they ever desire it. Not to force your message down anyone's throats. I don't even particularly care for the AA way of doing things, even if I'm stuck doing it right now. However a lot of people have some really strange ideas about what goes on there and by spreading that distorted message may be keeping some who may be helped by AA from getting it. It's not for everyone, and it's stupid that so many get forced to be there.
My take is that the 5% it does work for might not have been able to stay sober some other way. Statistics can be a little blurry that way, since there isn't necessarily an overlap between the various groupings. 5% of the population can quit with no help whatever, a different 5% with AA, and another by never stepping on sidewalk cracks. Regardless, that 5% of the population DID quit and there is no way to categorically state that those for whom it does work could have done it any other way.
Now the AA-evangelists are another story entirely, but you get the same kind of mindsets in any group. Some people are just wired to believe that their way is the only possible way and have all sorts of rationalizations about why it doesn't work for some, or why other ways work for other people.
I think the primary difference is that 747's don't have secret back doors built in to allow the NSA free access to the entire IT infrastructure (or at least the entire Windows based side) of whatever company uses them.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the evidence is not legitimate?
The Fourth means that the government should not have that information in the first place, therefore it is illegitimate.
But, but, but... catching bad guys!!!
Surveillance is indeed a tool of oppressive regimes, but it does not create them on its own. Prejudice and fear do that.
Well then it's a good thing we don't have any of that any more!
And you're right, pervasive surveillance doesn't create oppressive regimes, oppressive regimes create pervasive surveilance. Totally different.
Well, stuff happened in Wales too, a lot actually, what with Torchwood and all.
I think these common events, ones which we have learned to ignore and dismiss as irrelevant abberations in our senses, that likely contributed to the rise of religions. I mean, in a world where you have no better explanation, maybe that voice in the woods was the elves, or the spirit of the woods?
It was the creative thinkers that came up with all the mythical explanations in the first place. The rest just shrugged and said, "Elves, is it? Sounds about right to me!" Now if only our distant ancestors had been more biased against all those ancient, creative, myth makers we might have been less steeped in ignorance and superstition!
This sounds to me like the beginning of a big push for federal dollars by the incumbent phone companies, because if you get rid of POTS you're going to have to spend billions of dollars getting the remote areas of the country wired for IP/cellular, and looking at past experience the phone companies sure aren't going to pay for it.
Corporate welfare though it might be, I can only see this as good thing in the long run. Better cellular coverage and more internet access? If the government is going to waste the money on something anyway I'd rather have it on improving communications infrastructure than feeding the insatiable defense industry boondoggle machine.
Actually if you've been paying attention Microsoft have been making Windows Phones (Or at least a portable OS for phones) for over 10 years it's apple that jumped on the me too bandwagon.
Yeah, and they were some of the most difficult to use with a patently terrible interface. My girlfriend had a phone with winPhone 6.1, and I cringed every time she whipped out the stylus to click on whatever teeny tiny button. Even my old iphone 3gs was better than that, and it was a piece of crap too.
> You can get STDs for free
How?
Hooking up with someone for casual sex, for instance.
You're missing the point. The point isn't that legalizing prostitution would allow Joe Q. Public to visit high class escorts, rather that despite prostitution being illegal, politicians and high-ranking government officials frequent said escorts without repercussion. Joe Q. Public, on the other hand, would be publicly humiliated and subjected to the full weight of the anti-prostitution laws.
The first reply brought up an equally valid point. These high-ranking officials need to fear prosecution if they act in a manner un-befitting a politician. That is, doing things the elite criminal overlords (Wall Street bankers) don't like.
So if the events in the story are not the actions of an actual, or even burgeoning police state, what are they? A few bad actors in high government posts? The idea that a police state requires mass murder is simplistic. A police state is one in which the police, as the instruments of authorities have carte blanche to do whatever they want in order to maintain "law and order."
It may be somewhat alarmist to call the US a police state just yet, but denying that these are police state actions and that they will eventually lead to murdering dissidents and all the other sundry qualities of past police states is foolish.
I agree, I've always thought that minecraft was a great sandbox but they forgot to put an actual game in there anyplace. A handful of mobs, awkward combat, anemic equipment progression... it can be great fun to build grand structures but it just seems like every big idea they had to add to the game ended up being half assed leading to a constant nagging feeling that the game just isn't living up to its potential. I've always kind of wished they'd just open source the thing and let the community create something awesome.
The guards in Assassin's Creed 2+ will do that sometimes. After watching you methodically eliminate their compatriots they'll turn tail and flee. I almost never let them go, especially if they started the fight in the first place. A well aimed two-handed sword thrown into their back does the trick quite nicely. And makes me giggle.
The Department of Transportation is an executive office too, can they tell the NSA what to do? How about the Department of Agriculture? No? It's almost like there are multiple departments in the Executive branch, each responsible for different things! I know, crazy right??
More like spoiled offspring. The clueless rich parents giving their kids whatever they want and endlessly getting them out of trouble is a far more appropriate metaphor. Calling the USA Israel's "pet" or "bitch" give far too much power/credit to Israel. To hear them tell it, without the US as an ally they'd be overrun by the Arab Hordes in no time flat. Without big daddy USA's riches, weapons and what have you where would Israel be then?
A little worried because I think Sony is building their own custom digitizer/pen.
Sony would NEVER do such a thing, why they have a long, storied history of fully embracing technology standards!
Because it's the kickstand we deserve, but not the one we need right now.
I interpreted that the GP as meaning that as it is the government eliminating privacy there would be an implicit asymmetry in the access of such information. That is, the government, or more properly its agents, would have unprecedented access into the personal lives of, well, everybody. The statement "If there is no privacy the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny" does not imply that absolutely all privacy is removed, rather, the privacy of ordinary citizens is removed and those who can pay or otherwise maintain control of their own privacy, i.e. by brute force, have a grossly unbalanced amount of power and tyranny results from the malicious use of that power.
I mean really, if the NSA can break all encryption what exactly leads to the conclusion that everyone can do it? Even in the event that some clever crackers find and exploit whatever backdoors the NSA had placed in some encryption method most people would not have the resources or skills to intercept enough of other peoples traffic to make any real use of that ability. We've been hearing about how the NSA basically stores all, or nearly all, internet traffic. Do you have a tap at ATT&T as well?
So because there are scary bad men out there the government should be able to do whatever the fuck it wants to be able to catch them? Even if that includes massively violating the privacy of every citizen (never know who's a scary bad man!!) in the country? Even if it includes building a massive database filled with who the fuck knows what that never, ever, gets erased? You know how they say the internet forgets nothing? This is even worse, since random fruit loops on the internet don't have access to your phone records, your banking records, your phone calls, your location and every niggling little detail of your entire life! If you think it's bad that /b/ can access something stupid you said on your blog and troll you even if you delete it, just wait until some scary bad men, I mean trusted public servants, get ahold of all that juicy personal information that those stalwart do-gooders of the NSA put together for them, they'll have a field day! Accidently piss off some bureaucrat at the DMV? He'll just call his cousin at the Ministry of Love and they'll whip up some charges doubleplusquick then off to the Re-education centers (actually, that's too expensive, off to the work camps, more than likely).
If you really think it's just "metadata" you're deluded. All this stuff that's coming out used to sound like the fever dreams of the loony fringe, and god damn does it suck having to listen to them smugly say "We told you so."
Piker - Informal Noun
1) a person who does anything in a contemptibly small or cheap way.
...You have practically no chance of stopping scummy assholes who happen to belong to one party from getting into power.
And how's that working out in the US? We arguably already vote for parties anyway, most people don't vote in primaries so it pretty much comes down to voting either R or D. But the countries with proportional representation shouldn't be smug, it isn't as if their governments aren't corrupt and incompetent as well. At least they have 6 corrupt or useless parties instead of only two.
They mean beer, not abs...you queer.
Thanks for the clarification, genius.
Oh, and woosh.
Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers
FTFY, if you're going to drag that old chestnut out of its well earned retirement at least get it right!
Can't disagree with the fact that it may push some to continue drinking, however I think you'd find that a large proportion of those were somehow compelled to attend meetings/participate in AA. No matter how cultish it may appear, you'd be hard pressed to show that AA itself is aggressively trying to increase its membership by evangelism or other tactics, and is therefore directly causing harm to these people. Instead, the court systems, regardless of what caused them to believe so, have determined that 12-step group attendance should be required of individuals convicted of various alcohol/substance abuse related charges. So a third party is directing individuals to attend AA meetings against their will and the AA groups themselves can't stop these people from attending, even if some members would be happier if the "sheet signers" weren't there at all. Some times it works: I've heard numerous stories about people who were at one time forced to attend meetings, who resented it and usually continued drinking while they did it, who eventually embraced the AA way and quit drinking. Haven't heard the opposite, more than likely for the simple reason that those people quit going to meetings altogether and either slide into oblivion or quit some other way.
Sorry, kind of got to rambling there. My point is, that the fact that the AA message may cause some to continue, or even worsen, their using isn't the fault of the AA groups themselves. The book will even tell you, if you've got a prospective member and they're particularly opposed to the idea of AA, leave them alone and let them continue their destructive behaviour, but always be there to help them if they ever desire it. Not to force your message down anyone's throats. I don't even particularly care for the AA way of doing things, even if I'm stuck doing it right now. However a lot of people have some really strange ideas about what goes on there and by spreading that distorted message may be keeping some who may be helped by AA from getting it. It's not for everyone, and it's stupid that so many get forced to be there.
My take is that the 5% it does work for might not have been able to stay sober some other way. Statistics can be a little blurry that way, since there isn't necessarily an overlap between the various groupings. 5% of the population can quit with no help whatever, a different 5% with AA, and another by never stepping on sidewalk cracks. Regardless, that 5% of the population DID quit and there is no way to categorically state that those for whom it does work could have done it any other way.
Now the AA-evangelists are another story entirely, but you get the same kind of mindsets in any group. Some people are just wired to believe that their way is the only possible way and have all sorts of rationalizations about why it doesn't work for some, or why other ways work for other people.
Yeah, but they're wrong. Everyone knows it was the Reptoids, sheesh.
I think the primary difference is that 747's don't have secret back doors built in to allow the NSA free access to the entire IT infrastructure (or at least the entire Windows based side) of whatever company uses them.