Mexico is a failed state well on its way to anarchy. This is a country that can't even keep its police chiefs from getting assassinated by drug cartel thugs, and they think iris scanners are going to make a damned bit of difference? Give me a break.
This comment fully deserves a +5 score, but why is it modded as "Funny"? This is not funny, it's the tragic truth of Mexico's brutal reality.
Much the same may be said of the United States. Out of seven major signs of being a third world country with a first world public image, it is exhibiting seven.
They need an effective police state, and a Pinochet, a Franco, or other ruler who has enough leverage to kill anyone who is a threat to good citizens.
There is a point where the strictly limited and extremely restrained legalistic ways which are practical in stable countries do not work.
War, not law, is then necessary to kill and destroy the enemies of the people. Mexico is a failed state, and the way to put those in order is to give orders, enforce them with force, and ensure the narco-warlords are killed so they cannot operate from prison.
In the US, by comparison, we have trivial crime rates, pampered lives, and are so comfortable we cannot even understand such situations.
I am glad that someone wrote this openly. The only way to fight the most dangerous and unrepentant criminals is to kill them.
However, I fear that some politically correct idiots will mod you down...
I'd rather work with someone who has a Facebook page full of comments, a selection of interests and some drunk pictures than the antisocial guy with no life.
Darn. That's me:(
Why the sad smiley? Knowing how much humanity sucks, is being "antisocial" really a bad thing?
I'd rather work with someone who has a Facebook page full of comments, a selection of interests and some drunk pictures than the antisocial guy with no life.
I, on the other hand, have learned to trust an "antisocial guy with no life" much more than I trust an insincere, aggressively extroverted asslick with a compulsive need to be "friends" with absolutely everybody.
The funny thing about the nickname "Aftonhoran" is that Aftonbladet recognizes its validity. Try surfing to http://www.aftonhoran.se/ and see what happens.
Yeah, I know about the existence of that domain. Now I heard two stories about it, one which claims that it is owned by Aftonbladet itself, and the other which says that it is owned by a detractor who sometimes points it to his blog and sometimes to the original site. Not sure which one is true.
Anyhow, the domains point to different name servers, but then again it doesn't have to prove anything.
Aftonbladet, often nicknamed "Aftonhoran" ("The Evening Whore") is a miserable tabloid of nearly non-existent intellectual value. A typical issue looks more like a prop from the movie "Idiocracy" than a real newspaper from a civilized country.
Even a quick glance at its website clearly reveals its true values (or lack thereof), even to those who aren't native Swedish speakers.
Totally doesn't hold up. Back when MySpace was big, I don't think I knew more than 2 or 3 people with MySpace pages. It was pretty much exclusively a teen/college hangout.
These days the only people that I know who do NOT have Facebook pages are people without internet connections at all (lots of my family) and people who are security curmudgeons (like me). Even people who barely get on the internet use Facebook. Lots of people only even have an internet connection so that they CAN use Facebook.
You can barely buy a new mobile phone without a client for that shit pre-installed these days.
They're too late to join the game. The problem is that Facebook already has everyone you know, so everyone joins it because everyone else already is there.
Who modded up this drivel as insightful? Failbook has approx 500 million accounts, as in database entries, not necessarily real persons, because of duplicates and forgeries. Even if that (admittedly large) number consisted only of genuine active users, it still hardly represents "everybody".
Could we now please finally quit with the ad nauseam fallacy that "everybody is on Failbook"?
Some random mumblings about walled gardens and open source won't make normal people switch over.
I've never considered Twitter as anything more than a platform for deployment of retarded haiku. No matter how much I frowned upon Facebook, for instance, I can still clearly see its reason for existence. Not Twitter's though.
Gizmodo has shown in the past that they are too immature to be allowed attend these types of events.
Not only Gizmodo, I could argue that the same goes for the whole Gawker network. Take a look, for instance, at Jalopnik, the automotive sibling of Gizmodo. It is written by a bunch of immature imbeciles.
Colonization of other worlds is clearly impossible without manned flight.
Colonization of other worlds (which ones did you have in mind, by the way?) is clearly impossible without technologies that don't exist on Earth right now and won't exist for at least another few decades. Spending many billions of dollars on chemical rockets isn't going to get the job done.
Indeed, no question about that. But I could argue that putting a small, permanent, self-sustained human outpost on the Moon or Mars is possible with technologies currently available. Borderline possible, but still.
Better yet, why spend money to send people when we can send machines and do science?
There is zero _urgency_ to send humans, we need robots on earth and in space much more than we need humans in space, and robots don't (unlike humans) impose a prohibitively costly burden. Let other countries eat the R&D, then do what China does to us and enjoy the fruits of other peoples research.
I believe that colonization of other planets can provide the humanity with a way to survive major cataclysmic events on Earth. Of course we should utilize robots as much as possible, but not as a replacement for human space travelers.
No, but when 10 assholes who happen to have my email in their address book sign up and all expose THEIR address book to facebook, suddenly Facebook has created a little network with ME in it even if I've never been on Facebook. Then one of them "invites me to join" Facebook and I get an email that includes 10 or 20 "other people I may know".
In short - Facebook is cyberstalking me.
Very true -- this is the essence of my complaints against Facebook as well. Mod this guy up.
There's an incoming generation (and here I'm thinking of kids just entering their teens) who may not buy into the same privacy fears you and I might share. "Why bother with privacy," they think. "Why do I need to be private?"
I'm not sure if the change in philosophy is a generational shift to accomodate a wholly different social culture, or if, darkly, it represents an entire generation mindswiped by consumer overlords.
Thanks to the scumbags at Gizmodo, it doesn't even matter if he gets fired from Apple or not, anyone checking his name out online will know what he did.
Am I the only one with the impression that whole Gawker Media, not only Gizmodo, are a bunch of cunts?
The capacity of recruiters for absolute BS is amazing. Mind you there are smart ethical headhunters out there, but they're few and far between.
Having enough of experience with recruiters to write a book, I can only confirm this. While there are always honest exceptions, you simply have to treat a recruiter like shit unless you want them to do the same to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Mexico is a failed state well on its way to anarchy. This is a country that can't even keep its police chiefs from getting assassinated by drug cartel thugs, and they think iris scanners are going to make a damned bit of difference? Give me a break.
This comment fully deserves a +5 score, but why is it modded as "Funny"? This is not funny, it's the tragic truth of Mexico's brutal reality.
Much the same may be said of the United States. Out of seven major signs of being a third world country with a first world public image, it is exhibiting seven.
An obligatory link: 10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country
They need an effective police state, and a Pinochet, a Franco, or other ruler who has enough leverage to kill anyone who is a threat to good citizens.
There is a point where the strictly limited and extremely restrained legalistic ways which are practical in stable countries do not work.
War, not law, is then necessary to kill and destroy the enemies of the people. Mexico is a failed state, and the way to put those in order is to give orders, enforce them with force, and ensure the narco-warlords are killed so they cannot operate from prison.
In the US, by comparison, we have trivial crime rates, pampered lives, and are so comfortable we cannot even understand such situations.
I am glad that someone wrote this openly. The only way to fight the most dangerous and unrepentant criminals is to kill them.
However, I fear that some politically correct idiots will mod you down...
Darn. That's me :(
Why the sad smiley? Knowing how much humanity sucks, is being "antisocial" really a bad thing?
I'd rather work with someone who has a Facebook page full of comments, a selection of interests and some drunk pictures than the antisocial guy with no life.
I, on the other hand, have learned to trust an "antisocial guy with no life" much more than I trust an insincere, aggressively extroverted asslick with a compulsive need to be "friends" with absolutely everybody.
The only thing Facebook hasn't tried to buy is 4chan.
Watch, now that I said that... the next hot new product == facebook.com/b/
Acquisition of 4chan could only increase the intellectual value of Failbook.
Now the question is, who at Four Square turned down the offer, and how badly are they crapping their pants?
Doing PR for Zuckerberg in your spare time, eh CmdrTaco? How utterly pathetic.
Extremely well written. Thanks for following me up!
The funny thing about the nickname "Aftonhoran" is that Aftonbladet recognizes its validity. Try surfing to http://www.aftonhoran.se/ and see what happens.
Yeah, I know about the existence of that domain. Now I heard two stories about it, one which claims that it is owned by Aftonbladet itself, and the other which says that it is owned by a detractor who sometimes points it to his blog and sometimes to the original site. Not sure which one is true.
Anyhow, the domains point to different name servers, but then again it doesn't have to prove anything.
Aftonbladet, often nicknamed "Aftonhoran" ("The Evening Whore") is a miserable tabloid of nearly non-existent intellectual value. A typical issue looks more like a prop from the movie "Idiocracy" than a real newspaper from a civilized country.
Even a quick glance at its website clearly reveals its true values (or lack thereof), even to those who aren't native Swedish speakers.
Totally doesn't hold up. Back when MySpace was big, I don't think I knew more than 2 or 3 people with MySpace pages. It was pretty much exclusively a teen/college hangout.
These days the only people that I know who do NOT have Facebook pages are people without internet connections at all (lots of my family) and people who are security curmudgeons (like me). Even people who barely get on the internet use Facebook. Lots of people only even have an internet connection so that they CAN use Facebook.
You can barely buy a new mobile phone without a client for that shit pre-installed these days.
They're too late to join the game. The problem is that Facebook already has everyone you know, so everyone joins it because everyone else already is there.
Who modded up this drivel as insightful? Failbook has approx 500 million accounts, as in database entries, not necessarily real persons, because of duplicates and forgeries. Even if that (admittedly large) number consisted only of genuine active users, it still hardly represents "everybody".
Could we now please finally quit with the ad nauseam fallacy that "everybody is on Failbook"?
Some random mumblings about walled gardens and open source won't make normal people switch over.
And your definition of "normal people" is - what?
I've never considered Twitter as anything more than a platform for deployment of retarded haiku. No matter how much I frowned upon Facebook, for instance, I can still clearly see its reason for existence. Not Twitter's though.
Gizmodo has shown in the past that they are too immature to be allowed attend these types of events.
Not only Gizmodo, I could argue that the same goes for the whole Gawker network. Take a look, for instance, at Jalopnik, the automotive sibling of Gizmodo. It is written by a bunch of immature imbeciles.
"You and 54,972 others like this."
Thanks to AdBlock I no longer see "I like" nor any other web bugs from Facebook.
IBM had no problems assisting a mass murder, so their endorsement of a proposal to tag human beings like cattle is highly surprising.
Business on demand, indeed!
Full disclosure: Yes, I am a disgruntled former employee.
Colonization of other worlds is clearly impossible without manned flight.
Colonization of other worlds (which ones did you have in mind, by the way?) is clearly impossible without technologies that don't exist on Earth right now and won't exist for at least another few decades. Spending many billions of dollars on chemical rockets isn't going to get the job done.
Indeed, no question about that. But I could argue that putting a small, permanent, self-sustained human outpost on the Moon or Mars is possible with technologies currently available. Borderline possible, but still.
Better yet, why spend money to send people when we can send machines and do science?
There is zero _urgency_ to send humans, we need robots on earth and in space much more than we need humans in space, and robots don't (unlike humans) impose a prohibitively costly burden. Let other countries eat the R&D, then do what China does to us and enjoy the fruits of other peoples research.
I believe that colonization of other planets can provide the humanity with a way to survive major cataclysmic events on Earth. Of course we should utilize robots as much as possible, but not as a replacement for human space travelers.
What do we gain from manned space flight that we wouldn't gain, in a far cheaper way, from unmanned missions?
Colonization of other worlds is clearly impossible without manned flight.
>Facebook is not compulsory.
No, but when 10 assholes who happen to have my email in their address book sign up and all expose THEIR address book to facebook, suddenly Facebook has created a little network with ME in it even if I've never been on Facebook. Then one of them "invites me to join" Facebook and I get an email that includes 10 or 20 "other people I may know".
In short - Facebook is cyberstalking me.
Very true -- this is the essence of my complaints against Facebook as well. Mod this guy up.
You should use an app that is encrypted and password protected to store all of your login info.
Suggestions?
KeePass Password Safe works like a charm, even on multiple platforms.
There's an incoming generation (and here I'm thinking of kids just entering their teens) who may not buy into the same privacy fears you and I might share. "Why bother with privacy," they think. "Why do I need to be private?" I'm not sure if the change in philosophy is a generational shift to accomodate a wholly different social culture, or if, darkly, it represents an entire generation mindswiped by consumer overlords.
Probably the latter.
Either way, it's troubling.
Indeed so.
Thanks to the scumbags at Gizmodo, it doesn't even matter if he gets fired from Apple or not, anyone checking his name out online will know what he did.
Am I the only one with the impression that whole Gawker Media, not only Gizmodo, are a bunch of cunts?
The capacity of recruiters for absolute BS is amazing. Mind you there are smart ethical headhunters out there, but they're few and far between.
Having enough of experience with recruiters to write a book, I can only confirm this. While there are always honest exceptions, you simply have to treat a recruiter like shit unless you want them to do the same to you.
After all, many universities already teach homeopathy and other forms of quackery and pseudoscience, so why not add ufology to the list?