I think fining people $5 every time they honk within city limits would be justified, but I'd settle for limiting cabbies to three honks a month.
Well that's fucking stupid. I ride a motorcycle. One of the fun things about riding a motorcycle is that just about every other motorist on the road likes to pretend you don't exist. So 90% of the time, and about 99% of the time in crowded places like cities, most of the motorcycling experience sums up to, "making sure other people know you exist so they don't run over you." Even in good weather, great visibility, and broad daylight, I have retards regularly change lanes into me without checking their blindspots to see I am there. I have folks fly up on my tail and, often, only avoiding rear-ending my bike by slamming on their brakes, and I can't count how many people make turns across unprotected intersections while I am crossing at a perpendicular.
In all of these situations, I have to maneuver my bike around and act quick to keep from being someone's hood ornament. I accept that. I don't begrudge it. But I do use my horn whenever I can get my finger on the button. A quick and loud beep beep is usually enough to make most drivers aware that they are about to run me over. They can then hold off on their ill-checked maneuver until I get by them or whatever is necessary to clear the way. The point is, on a motorcycle, having a horn is a great thing. It is a wonderful thing. It has definitely contributed to saving my life once or twice. Charging me $5 for using my horn inside city limits would do little more than convince me that the government is, once again, butt-fucking retarded. The horn is a safety device, and, when used as such, is extremely effective. If you don't like yours, fine. But don't take mine away. Sometimes it helps to have a loud, instantaneous noise come from your vehicle to let other people know you are there.
Well, we nerds have access to a lot more technology than just IT servers and programming code. I am pretty sure there are nerds from every walk of life on here. Myself, I'm a space nerd. I can tell you how to design the control systems of spacecraft, plus a few other nifty tricks. So add that skill to your basket of nerd tricks.
Anyways, I don't want to start rambling, but if you really want a call to arms, then the action that I think you/we could take that would be best would to be to start our own propaganda campaigns. Right now, the plutocracy, as you call it, has a massive stranglehold on much of America's opinions (T.V.). We nerds made a dent in that with the internet (and that dent will grow as older generations die off and younger generations grow old enough to vote and think for themselves), but we still don't have as much clout as the loudmouths clamoring on the evening news every night.
If I recall correctly, the founding fathers faced a lot of similar issues under British rule. I believe that the British regularly circulated and/or had control of most colonial presses before The Revolution (folks can check me on this if I am wrong, the class I am thinking of was a long time ago). Anyways, the revolutionaries found the best way to fan a revolution was by starting their own propaganda machine, hence getting the common man to take up arms against the overlords. This started with things like Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. A few years of such propaganda, and the colonies were fuming and itching for a fight, which is exactly what they got.
So if you want a call to arms, if you want to take action, if you want to say enough is enough, then start putting your IT skills to use for a propaganda machine (and not just inside the internet). Start talking to people face to face. Start writing letters to the newspapers of the towns you live in. Start drawing political cartoons and such depicting despicable politicians doing atrocious things. The thing is, you don't have to be pedantic and factual like we nerds are prone to be. You have to grip emotion. You have to grab the populace by the balls and make them yelp for freedom. This is necessary because the folks clamoring on the nightly news already do this. Fact is not necessary to the government and corporate sponsored propaganda machines. Emotion is. You have to scare them into thinking that they are better off dying with a gun in their hands and an unlocked iPhone in their pocket rather than dying in a warm, cozy bed with a full stomach and another episode of American Idol to fall eternally asleep to.
If you really want a revolution, then make no mistake, you have to get your hands dirty to get it. We geeks have to come together, utilizing all of our skills and knowledge, to get the non slashdotters on our side. And it isn't hopeless. We have legions of angsty teenagers, disgruntled punk rockers, pissed off harcore, scene, and emo kids, amused hipsters, gun-toting rednecks, and nutjob libertarians just twitching for a chance to enact real change. Change that involves bankers dangling from trees by their necks and politicians strung up in town square for folk to throw rocks at. Would that scene be pretty? No. Is it necessary? I'm not sure. But I can tell you that the will to end this kind of bullshit is already percolating through most groups of people. What is required is a massive effort to unite such groups of folk into one cause: your revolution...our revolution.
So what can we do? Start talking, in places other than the internet.
You would think if a great HS CS education could be had here, California surely would go way above and beyond.
Never underestimate how hard we can fail in California. We will take it as a challenge, and we will surely shut you up. Even if it means shooting ourselves, our families, and our children in the face in the process. It's what we do these days.;)
Meh, my parents disagree regarding quite a few poignant political topics and they've been married happily for 35+ years or something like that. Some of my fondest relationships were with girlfriends that tended to disagree with me over certain political//social things. Two people can be in love and not agree on everything. Hell, I'd even risk saying that it is healthier to some extent.
And yet, Wikileaks survived and is still leaking material to this day, without all of those services. Perhaps all those services are not as VITAL as you think they are?
This is going to be a rant, a biased rant, and a personal opinion rant. Nonetheless, I think it is a rant worth posting.
SGU needed to be canceled. That stupid show needed to be canceled far more than 90% of the other shows canceled in T.V. history. I watched the entire first season of SGU with high expectations. I even watched most of the second season hoping that, somehow, against all odds, the writers would hoist that heap of dramatic crap out of the soap-opera-hole of stupidity it dug for itself. It wasn't going to happen though.
SGU was crap, total, utter, worthless crap. Every stupid freakin' episode followed the same storybook recipe for building superficial drama. The characters spent 45 minutes of the damn show running around, talking about what a difficult situation they were in, arguing with each other, and doing nothing to fix whatever problem they had at hand. Then, in the last few minutes, they implement a "daring" and "risky" plan of action, that they spent the rest of the episode crying about. The episode ends with a major cliffhanger that wouldn't be present were it not for the unfathomable stupidity and dramatic nature of the characters involved. Then, in the next episode, rather than develop the problem and solution dynamic more, they magically mop the cliffhanger up (all Deus Ex Machina style) within the first five minutes of the new episode, thus allowing a whole new insipid, dramatic issue to be developed for this episode.
Sure, there were one or two interesting episodes that did something curious, like the time loop episode, or the seed-ship episode. But 95% of this stupid freakin' show was contrived drama and useless blubbering. I've heard some folks say that the characters were the major plus of the series. I call bullshit. The characters were stupid. With the exception of Rush demonstrating the borderline between genius and sociopath, none of the other characters were even remotely interesting, much less realistic. Col. Young continually flip flopped between a dramatic, lost soul, to a take charge, settle this shit military commander with no apparent continuity to his decisions or personality. He was weak and useless when the plot needed him to be. He was a take charge ass kicker when the plot needed him to be. Lt. Scott was basically the science fiction version of that stupid vampire from Twilight: a soft, sensitive boy stuck in the troublesome present where being a man just isn't as simple as it used to be. Eli could have been an interesting character if he didn't spend every episode crying about how nobody loves him. Chloe was an emotionally useless tramp, just like the female role from that dumb Twilight series. TJ did well enough, but she needed a bigger part and should have had access to more guns. Greer, well, Greer was at least consistent in his character, in that he was a lock, stock, and barrel military type that would shoot first and ask questions later. Oh, and the HR representative that has a take-charge attitude from the get go? She was a complete tool. Her character's only purpose was to sit there and moralize about what everyone else was doing wrong, while doing little more than causing problems for everyone else on board by proselytizing to the wrong people at the wrong time. She served no other purpose than to generate drama and conflict in what is supposed to be a damn science fiction series.
And that's the crux of the whole matter. the Original SG-1 had numerous plots, problems, and solutions driven by scientific phenomena and Sam Carter (or Daniel Jackson's) intelligent and creative thinking. SGU was nothing more than a dimly lit teenage soap opera on a dark spaceship. Maybe 2 or 3 episodes out of an entire season could be deemed to have any scientific underpinnings. The rest was nothing more than a bunch of pissy, useless teenagers crying on each others shoulders about how hard it was to be them: Fucking useless as science fiction.
I'll be honest, since the first season, I have been waiting for this stupid series to get canceled. It is an insult to the original Stargate movie, to the original Stargate series, and to the genre of Sci-Fi in general. Good fucking riddance.
Provide the resources, and someone will find a use for them. Don't provide the resources and everyone becomes artificially constrained whether or not they have a genius idea that could use them. After all, was 640K enough for everyone?
Actually, I am very well educated, so well educated, in fact, that I can recognize a good practical joke when I see it and appreciate it as such. But please, don't let that subtlety get in the way of your crusade to eliminate all humor from the internet AC.;)
Do we really need to insult broad swaths of people that fall under some common name, like libertarians? I know quite a few libertarians. Some of them are just as nutty and out of touch with reality as some of the hardcore green groups, or some of the hardcore rednecks I know. Some of them are also pretty rational people, that like to sit down and consider issues in detail, in order to determine the best solution for a particular problem, including government regulation if such a solution is a viable one. The title of libertarian, like most titles (especially political ones), encompasses a wide variety of people across a large range of intelligence. Calling them all idiots doesn't do jack-shit for intelligent discussion.
I really think the societies of our species would be stronger if we could tone down all the name-calling and finger pointing. A bit less passion and a bit more consideration could go a long way in working together to fix things. But then, I suppose everyone wants a group of "bad guys" that they can hate on.
Probably because, rather than making an articulated, insightful point backed up with some citations and historical examples of the abuses the OP was talking about, the post contains a lot of insulting, flamebaiting, politically biased asshattery that does little more than point a finger and say, "Nah nah nah nah nah nah! Your leaders suck!"
Quite honestly, I think posts like this deserve to be modded flamebait, even if they do have some seeds of truth in them (the lobbying and all that jazz), because they do not contribute to a conversation in an intelligent or rational manner. They are just pissy rants posted by people too immature to accept the fact that the real world is an ugly place, and more often than not, blame doesn't lie with one group of "thems" verses the "us."
Don't worry though, it appears that, despite some downmodding, the post was modded back up to insightful because, just like some commentators, some moderators are too juvenile to recognize flambait when they agree with the point of the rant being posted. So you and the OP can go back to your smug little world where you see things along black and white lines and there are always "bad guys" that always fall under some easily recognizable label like Republicans, assuring yourselves with every breathe that, "at least we're not like them."
Self-reply, but one more thing that came to mind. I don't know if the construction is done on the room yet, but make sure there are lots of power outlets at all heights around the room if at all possible. You will never have too many outlets, but you will always have too many tools to plug in safely.
I suppose the answer depends somewhat on your definition of legitimate...
If the room is lit properly, heavily ventilated, and you get some of the smaller equipment, you can certainly weld some things in such a space. When I crafted a sword for my high school senior project, I was welding in a poorly lit garage that was about the dimensions you listed (probably a bit longer than the 15' though). The weld job was pretty simple, very rudimentary, and didn't require a lot of skill. If you are going to be welding grandiose projects and such, you'll want a better space than that. If you are terribly concerned about safety and are not a fan of rednecking it up (as I happen to be) then you will want a bigger space than that. But for simple, small welds, it is definitely possible.
Of course, if one of your gas canisters explodes (highly unlikely) in such a small space, the damage will be much greater.
If you have a lot of vertical space, you could utilize some good pegboard and hangar brackets to store most of your tools. Also, I always find myself in want of a drill press and, to a lesser extent, a lathe and a mill. Welding equipment is also a plus. But all of those (minus a drill press, those can be pretty small) take up space. Fans and heaters are a nice convenience, if there isn't already some sort of environmental control. Finally, if other people than yourself are going to be working there regularly (I think that's kind of the definition of a hackerspace) then you might want to get a really nice label-maker/gun so that things stay relatively organized.
you cannot satiate a tyrant. when he has 4 palaces and 3 gold toilets, he will want 8 palaces and 6 gold toilets. selfishness and greed know no bounds. that's not to say that the patronizing condescending moralist who wants to tell you how to live for "your own good" can be satiated either. it is simply to say neither type of asshole can be satiated, and to say one can and the other can't is extremely lame
And yet, in your original post, you advocated the notion that fellow men were to be feared more than the government. If you think this low of these two types of people, why would you want to put either in charge of a society to tell people how to live? Or, better posed, as I don't want to construct a false dichotomy, who would you put such responsibility in the hands of? I realize we do not live under a monarchy in the States, and the idea is that the competing interests of those with power will help negate the abuses of any individual ruler (politician). But what happens when those put into power are often groups of like-minded individuals? What if the massive number of people with power in a society are moralists, who each think they can improve the lives of those below them? Then the checks and balances theory starts to shake on it's foundation assumption that those in power will have different interests, and the whole system gets fracked up.
I realize I am just pointing out a flaw in a system, rather than proposing a better system, but I don't understand how you can advocate the fear of individual men over the fear of government when the government merely exists as a group men (each individually flawed) with a single pointed interest, or group of interests. It seems to me it would make more sense to fear the entity that has superior resources over which to exert power over you, which, in this case, is the government.
whether simple petty crime, white collar crime, or well intentioned but confused effort, individuals are worse than governments, when given no structure, no security, and no regulation
i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government
Maybe you need to start hanging out around better people? Or move to a safer area? I can honestly say I have never felt this way in the past decade myself. The folks that I hang around and encounter on a daily basis tend to disagree with me on a lot of things, but I have never feared them. Then again, I don't really give many folks the opportunity to have any power over me. Similarly, I recognize that bad shit happens in life, sometimes due to the actions of folks around me, and I have trained myself to deal with unexpected circumstances, but that's just me.
On the other hand, I fear my government quite a bit. I know that if I piss off the local cops in my town too much, they will profile me, they will harass me, and they will pester me until I slip up somewhere and they can publicly hang me for it (metaphor). I also know that, if my government so desired, it could declare martial law in my area (it wouldn't have a reason to, but it could), and it could proceed to invade my home with an army that could make my life hell. Now, is that likely to happen? Nah. But I have far fewer protections from such circumstances than I do from the dangers presented by individuals around me. I can deal with one or two men fine. I can't deal with an army (be it of lawyers, soldiers, police officers, or whatever) that has a massive surplus of resources compared to myself, if I get entangled in something (directly or indirectly) that leads to my persecution by such a band. Now, presumably we have things like the Constitution and the Law to protect us from such incursions on our natural rights as human beings and free men, but frankly, I don't trust those things to protect me anymore. The more I look around, the less it seems like those entities are used to protect the individual anymore.
So I don't know. Maybe you and I have just had vastly different experiences. But if you honestly fear your fellow men far more than the government, then I would say you have much more faith in the power of things like the voting process, or you hang around some really shady assholes. Or maybe you just need to get out and meet and try to understand some more people. The vast majority of folk that I meet are decent folk. They might be slow, or stupid, or petty, or ridiculous in some respects or another, but very few of them are what I would classify as bad or dangerous people. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because your post is mainly an opinion piece and opinions can't really be wrong. But I did want to tell you some folk out there have a polar opposite opinion, and maybe give you some insight as to why.
It's easy to control, confront, and cope with the abuses raised by an individual man standing next to you. It is very difficult to do the same for the abuses raised by a government presiding over you.
...the subversion of lawful processes in a democratic nation?
The law is no different from a fellow man standing right beside you: It only deserves respect if it earns respect. The law, as it stands in many societies today, sucks. It's that simple. Following a sucky law, even in an attempt to change it, is futile and silly. If the lawful processes of a democratic nation are put together in such a manner as to stifle the reworking of the law through any meaningful practice, be it by imposing ignorance, or some heavy hand of force, then it is flawed. In that case, it is not only okay to subvert it, it is absolutely your duty as a citizen of that society to subvert it.
Do I consider Assange to be some sort of plucky hero of patriotism running about freeing oppressed men from evil societies? Nah. My views on Assange aren't even really that relevant. I do, however, consider it necessary to address the portion of your post that I quoted, because demanding strict adherence to the law without an examination of the justness or utility of the law is just daft and stupid. Besides 90% of us break the law in this country every day when we drive to work in the morning and speed a little bit. What a useless institution the law has become in the States. It's sad really...
Well, the proposed privacy policy is funny and gives the author a nice little medium through which to rant, but it doesn't really do anything to increase privacy on the internet does it? This privacy has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being adopted by anyone with a legitimate web-business. It's a great joke, but this is hardly a YRO story. It's pretty idle.
So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech.
No, I don't think that's all that fair of a brush to paint with. In the last story on the/. main page, the one regarding Anon's threat of DDOSing Amazon, I just read at least five highly moderated comments that read along the lines of, "This is a criminal activity and the idiots doing it should be persecuted as such." I also read a few, "They're only making things worse. Retards..."
So saying that slashdot is cheering on Anonymous is pretty disingenuous. So far as I can tell, the slashdot crowd is pretty evenly divided on this particular topic, as they are on most (not all) things.
Slashdot Mirror
I think fining people $5 every time they honk within city limits would be justified, but I'd settle for limiting cabbies to three honks a month.
Well that's fucking stupid. I ride a motorcycle. One of the fun things about riding a motorcycle is that just about every other motorist on the road likes to pretend you don't exist. So 90% of the time, and about 99% of the time in crowded places like cities, most of the motorcycling experience sums up to, "making sure other people know you exist so they don't run over you." Even in good weather, great visibility, and broad daylight, I have retards regularly change lanes into me without checking their blindspots to see I am there. I have folks fly up on my tail and, often, only avoiding rear-ending my bike by slamming on their brakes, and I can't count how many people make turns across unprotected intersections while I am crossing at a perpendicular.
In all of these situations, I have to maneuver my bike around and act quick to keep from being someone's hood ornament. I accept that. I don't begrudge it. But I do use my horn whenever I can get my finger on the button. A quick and loud beep beep is usually enough to make most drivers aware that they are about to run me over. They can then hold off on their ill-checked maneuver until I get by them or whatever is necessary to clear the way. The point is, on a motorcycle, having a horn is a great thing. It is a wonderful thing. It has definitely contributed to saving my life once or twice. Charging me $5 for using my horn inside city limits would do little more than convince me that the government is, once again, butt-fucking retarded. The horn is a safety device, and, when used as such, is extremely effective. If you don't like yours, fine. But don't take mine away. Sometimes it helps to have a loud, instantaneous noise come from your vehicle to let other people know you are there.
Well, we nerds have access to a lot more technology than just IT servers and programming code. I am pretty sure there are nerds from every walk of life on here. Myself, I'm a space nerd. I can tell you how to design the control systems of spacecraft, plus a few other nifty tricks. So add that skill to your basket of nerd tricks.
Anyways, I don't want to start rambling, but if you really want a call to arms, then the action that I think you/we could take that would be best would to be to start our own propaganda campaigns. Right now, the plutocracy, as you call it, has a massive stranglehold on much of America's opinions (T.V.). We nerds made a dent in that with the internet (and that dent will grow as older generations die off and younger generations grow old enough to vote and think for themselves), but we still don't have as much clout as the loudmouths clamoring on the evening news every night.
If I recall correctly, the founding fathers faced a lot of similar issues under British rule. I believe that the British regularly circulated and/or had control of most colonial presses before The Revolution (folks can check me on this if I am wrong, the class I am thinking of was a long time ago). Anyways, the revolutionaries found the best way to fan a revolution was by starting their own propaganda machine, hence getting the common man to take up arms against the overlords. This started with things like Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. A few years of such propaganda, and the colonies were fuming and itching for a fight, which is exactly what they got.
So if you want a call to arms, if you want to take action, if you want to say enough is enough, then start putting your IT skills to use for a propaganda machine (and not just inside the internet). Start talking to people face to face. Start writing letters to the newspapers of the towns you live in. Start drawing political cartoons and such depicting despicable politicians doing atrocious things. The thing is, you don't have to be pedantic and factual like we nerds are prone to be. You have to grip emotion. You have to grab the populace by the balls and make them yelp for freedom. This is necessary because the folks clamoring on the nightly news already do this. Fact is not necessary to the government and corporate sponsored propaganda machines. Emotion is. You have to scare them into thinking that they are better off dying with a gun in their hands and an unlocked iPhone in their pocket rather than dying in a warm, cozy bed with a full stomach and another episode of American Idol to fall eternally asleep to.
If you really want a revolution, then make no mistake, you have to get your hands dirty to get it. We geeks have to come together, utilizing all of our skills and knowledge, to get the non slashdotters on our side. And it isn't hopeless. We have legions of angsty teenagers, disgruntled punk rockers, pissed off harcore, scene, and emo kids, amused hipsters, gun-toting rednecks, and nutjob libertarians just twitching for a chance to enact real change. Change that involves bankers dangling from trees by their necks and politicians strung up in town square for folk to throw rocks at. Would that scene be pretty? No. Is it necessary? I'm not sure. But I can tell you that the will to end this kind of bullshit is already percolating through most groups of people. What is required is a massive effort to unite such groups of folk into one cause: your revolution...our revolution.
So what can we do? Start talking, in places other than the internet.
You would think if a great HS CS education could be had here, California surely would go way above and beyond.
Never underestimate how hard we can fail in California. We will take it as a challenge, and we will surely shut you up. Even if it means shooting ourselves, our families, and our children in the face in the process. It's what we do these days. ;)
What man is a man that does not try to improve the world of which he is a part?
I suspect quite a few "mens' rights" groups have made a song and dance over this already.
You know, men can get raped too. Asshole.
Meh, my parents disagree regarding quite a few poignant political topics and they've been married happily for 35+ years or something like that. Some of my fondest relationships were with girlfriends that tended to disagree with me over certain political//social things. Two people can be in love and not agree on everything. Hell, I'd even risk saying that it is healthier to some extent.
And yet, Wikileaks survived and is still leaking material to this day, without all of those services. Perhaps all those services are not as VITAL as you think they are?
This is going to be a rant, a biased rant, and a personal opinion rant. Nonetheless, I think it is a rant worth posting.
SGU needed to be canceled. That stupid show needed to be canceled far more than 90% of the other shows canceled in T.V. history. I watched the entire first season of SGU with high expectations. I even watched most of the second season hoping that, somehow, against all odds, the writers would hoist that heap of dramatic crap out of the soap-opera-hole of stupidity it dug for itself. It wasn't going to happen though.
SGU was crap, total, utter, worthless crap. Every stupid freakin' episode followed the same storybook recipe for building superficial drama. The characters spent 45 minutes of the damn show running around, talking about what a difficult situation they were in, arguing with each other, and doing nothing to fix whatever problem they had at hand. Then, in the last few minutes, they implement a "daring" and "risky" plan of action, that they spent the rest of the episode crying about. The episode ends with a major cliffhanger that wouldn't be present were it not for the unfathomable stupidity and dramatic nature of the characters involved. Then, in the next episode, rather than develop the problem and solution dynamic more, they magically mop the cliffhanger up (all Deus Ex Machina style) within the first five minutes of the new episode, thus allowing a whole new insipid, dramatic issue to be developed for this episode.
Sure, there were one or two interesting episodes that did something curious, like the time loop episode, or the seed-ship episode. But 95% of this stupid freakin' show was contrived drama and useless blubbering. I've heard some folks say that the characters were the major plus of the series. I call bullshit. The characters were stupid. With the exception of Rush demonstrating the borderline between genius and sociopath, none of the other characters were even remotely interesting, much less realistic. Col. Young continually flip flopped between a dramatic, lost soul, to a take charge, settle this shit military commander with no apparent continuity to his decisions or personality. He was weak and useless when the plot needed him to be. He was a take charge ass kicker when the plot needed him to be. Lt. Scott was basically the science fiction version of that stupid vampire from Twilight: a soft, sensitive boy stuck in the troublesome present where being a man just isn't as simple as it used to be. Eli could have been an interesting character if he didn't spend every episode crying about how nobody loves him. Chloe was an emotionally useless tramp, just like the female role from that dumb Twilight series. TJ did well enough, but she needed a bigger part and should have had access to more guns. Greer, well, Greer was at least consistent in his character, in that he was a lock, stock, and barrel military type that would shoot first and ask questions later. Oh, and the HR representative that has a take-charge attitude from the get go? She was a complete tool. Her character's only purpose was to sit there and moralize about what everyone else was doing wrong, while doing little more than causing problems for everyone else on board by proselytizing to the wrong people at the wrong time. She served no other purpose than to generate drama and conflict in what is supposed to be a damn science fiction series.
And that's the crux of the whole matter. the Original SG-1 had numerous plots, problems, and solutions driven by scientific phenomena and Sam Carter (or Daniel Jackson's) intelligent and creative thinking. SGU was nothing more than a dimly lit teenage soap opera on a dark spaceship. Maybe 2 or 3 episodes out of an entire season could be deemed to have any scientific underpinnings. The rest was nothing more than a bunch of pissy, useless teenagers crying on each others shoulders about how hard it was to be them: Fucking useless as science fiction.
I'll be honest, since the first season, I have been waiting for this stupid series to get canceled. It is an insult to the original Stargate movie, to the original Stargate series, and to the genre of Sci-Fi in general. Good fucking riddance.
So...those of us with Nvidia graphics cards are boned even harder now? Sweet...
Provide the resources, and someone will find a use for them. Don't provide the resources and everyone becomes artificially constrained whether or not they have a genius idea that could use them. After all, was 640K enough for everyone?
I realize it's California so it should be fairly sunny year round but I'm not familiar with the area it's being built at.
As a Californian, let me *facepalm* over such an asinine comment for the rest of my Golden Coast brothers and sisters.
Actually, I am very well educated, so well educated, in fact, that I can recognize a good practical joke when I see it and appreciate it as such. But please, don't let that subtlety get in the way of your crusade to eliminate all humor from the internet AC. ;)
I wonder if they will add Google's list of French military victories to that blacklist...
Do we really need to insult broad swaths of people that fall under some common name, like libertarians? I know quite a few libertarians. Some of them are just as nutty and out of touch with reality as some of the hardcore green groups, or some of the hardcore rednecks I know. Some of them are also pretty rational people, that like to sit down and consider issues in detail, in order to determine the best solution for a particular problem, including government regulation if such a solution is a viable one. The title of libertarian, like most titles (especially political ones), encompasses a wide variety of people across a large range of intelligence. Calling them all idiots doesn't do jack-shit for intelligent discussion.
I really think the societies of our species would be stronger if we could tone down all the name-calling and finger pointing. A bit less passion and a bit more consideration could go a long way in working together to fix things. But then, I suppose everyone wants a group of "bad guys" that they can hate on.
Probably because, rather than making an articulated, insightful point backed up with some citations and historical examples of the abuses the OP was talking about, the post contains a lot of insulting, flamebaiting, politically biased asshattery that does little more than point a finger and say, "Nah nah nah nah nah nah! Your leaders suck!"
Quite honestly, I think posts like this deserve to be modded flamebait, even if they do have some seeds of truth in them (the lobbying and all that jazz), because they do not contribute to a conversation in an intelligent or rational manner. They are just pissy rants posted by people too immature to accept the fact that the real world is an ugly place, and more often than not, blame doesn't lie with one group of "thems" verses the "us."
Don't worry though, it appears that, despite some downmodding, the post was modded back up to insightful because, just like some commentators, some moderators are too juvenile to recognize flambait when they agree with the point of the rant being posted. So you and the OP can go back to your smug little world where you see things along black and white lines and there are always "bad guys" that always fall under some easily recognizable label like Republicans, assuring yourselves with every breathe that, "at least we're not like them."
Meh, I've never been particularly impressed by China's methods of fixing problems caused by the West. If that's the best fate the Middle East gets to hope for, well, best of luck to them with that.
Self-reply, but one more thing that came to mind. I don't know if the construction is done on the room yet, but make sure there are lots of power outlets at all heights around the room if at all possible. You will never have too many outlets, but you will always have too many tools to plug in safely.
I suppose the answer depends somewhat on your definition of legitimate...
If the room is lit properly, heavily ventilated, and you get some of the smaller equipment, you can certainly weld some things in such a space. When I crafted a sword for my high school senior project, I was welding in a poorly lit garage that was about the dimensions you listed (probably a bit longer than the 15' though). The weld job was pretty simple, very rudimentary, and didn't require a lot of skill. If you are going to be welding grandiose projects and such, you'll want a better space than that. If you are terribly concerned about safety and are not a fan of rednecking it up (as I happen to be) then you will want a bigger space than that. But for simple, small welds, it is definitely possible.
Of course, if one of your gas canisters explodes (highly unlikely) in such a small space, the damage will be much greater.
If you have a lot of vertical space, you could utilize some good pegboard and hangar brackets to store most of your tools. Also, I always find myself in want of a drill press and, to a lesser extent, a lathe and a mill. Welding equipment is also a plus. But all of those (minus a drill press, those can be pretty small) take up space. Fans and heaters are a nice convenience, if there isn't already some sort of environmental control. Finally, if other people than yourself are going to be working there regularly (I think that's kind of the definition of a hackerspace) then you might want to get a really nice label-maker/gun so that things stay relatively organized.
you cannot satiate a tyrant. when he has 4 palaces and 3 gold toilets, he will want 8 palaces and 6 gold toilets. selfishness and greed know no bounds. that's not to say that the patronizing condescending moralist who wants to tell you how to live for "your own good" can be satiated either. it is simply to say neither type of asshole can be satiated, and to say one can and the other can't is extremely lame
And yet, in your original post, you advocated the notion that fellow men were to be feared more than the government. If you think this low of these two types of people, why would you want to put either in charge of a society to tell people how to live? Or, better posed, as I don't want to construct a false dichotomy, who would you put such responsibility in the hands of? I realize we do not live under a monarchy in the States, and the idea is that the competing interests of those with power will help negate the abuses of any individual ruler (politician). But what happens when those put into power are often groups of like-minded individuals? What if the massive number of people with power in a society are moralists, who each think they can improve the lives of those below them? Then the checks and balances theory starts to shake on it's foundation assumption that those in power will have different interests, and the whole system gets fracked up.
I realize I am just pointing out a flaw in a system, rather than proposing a better system, but I don't understand how you can advocate the fear of individual men over the fear of government when the government merely exists as a group men (each individually flawed) with a single pointed interest, or group of interests. It seems to me it would make more sense to fear the entity that has superior resources over which to exert power over you, which, in this case, is the government.
whether simple petty crime, white collar crime, or well intentioned but confused effort, individuals are worse than governments, when given no structure, no security, and no regulation
i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government
Maybe you need to start hanging out around better people? Or move to a safer area? I can honestly say I have never felt this way in the past decade myself. The folks that I hang around and encounter on a daily basis tend to disagree with me on a lot of things, but I have never feared them. Then again, I don't really give many folks the opportunity to have any power over me. Similarly, I recognize that bad shit happens in life, sometimes due to the actions of folks around me, and I have trained myself to deal with unexpected circumstances, but that's just me.
On the other hand, I fear my government quite a bit. I know that if I piss off the local cops in my town too much, they will profile me, they will harass me, and they will pester me until I slip up somewhere and they can publicly hang me for it (metaphor). I also know that, if my government so desired, it could declare martial law in my area (it wouldn't have a reason to, but it could), and it could proceed to invade my home with an army that could make my life hell. Now, is that likely to happen? Nah. But I have far fewer protections from such circumstances than I do from the dangers presented by individuals around me. I can deal with one or two men fine. I can't deal with an army (be it of lawyers, soldiers, police officers, or whatever) that has a massive surplus of resources compared to myself, if I get entangled in something (directly or indirectly) that leads to my persecution by such a band. Now, presumably we have things like the Constitution and the Law to protect us from such incursions on our natural rights as human beings and free men, but frankly, I don't trust those things to protect me anymore. The more I look around, the less it seems like those entities are used to protect the individual anymore.
So I don't know. Maybe you and I have just had vastly different experiences. But if you honestly fear your fellow men far more than the government, then I would say you have much more faith in the power of things like the voting process, or you hang around some really shady assholes. Or maybe you just need to get out and meet and try to understand some more people. The vast majority of folk that I meet are decent folk. They might be slow, or stupid, or petty, or ridiculous in some respects or another, but very few of them are what I would classify as bad or dangerous people. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because your post is mainly an opinion piece and opinions can't really be wrong. But I did want to tell you some folk out there have a polar opposite opinion, and maybe give you some insight as to why.
It's easy to control, confront, and cope with the abuses raised by an individual man standing next to you. It is very difficult to do the same for the abuses raised by a government presiding over you.
...the subversion of lawful processes in a democratic nation?
The law is no different from a fellow man standing right beside you: It only deserves respect if it earns respect. The law, as it stands in many societies today, sucks. It's that simple. Following a sucky law, even in an attempt to change it, is futile and silly. If the lawful processes of a democratic nation are put together in such a manner as to stifle the reworking of the law through any meaningful practice, be it by imposing ignorance, or some heavy hand of force, then it is flawed. In that case, it is not only okay to subvert it, it is absolutely your duty as a citizen of that society to subvert it.
Do I consider Assange to be some sort of plucky hero of patriotism running about freeing oppressed men from evil societies? Nah. My views on Assange aren't even really that relevant. I do, however, consider it necessary to address the portion of your post that I quoted, because demanding strict adherence to the law without an examination of the justness or utility of the law is just daft and stupid. Besides 90% of us break the law in this country every day when we drive to work in the morning and speed a little bit. What a useless institution the law has become in the States. It's sad really...
Well, the proposed privacy policy is funny and gives the author a nice little medium through which to rant, but it doesn't really do anything to increase privacy on the internet does it? This privacy has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being adopted by anyone with a legitimate web-business. It's a great joke, but this is hardly a YRO story. It's pretty idle.
Oh, damn. It would have been fun to see your deployment mechanisms and such.
So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech.
No, I don't think that's all that fair of a brush to paint with. In the last story on the /. main page, the one regarding Anon's threat of DDOSing Amazon, I just read at least five highly moderated comments that read along the lines of, "This is a criminal activity and the idiots doing it should be persecuted as such." I also read a few, "They're only making things worse. Retards..."
So saying that slashdot is cheering on Anonymous is pretty disingenuous. So far as I can tell, the slashdot crowd is pretty evenly divided on this particular topic, as they are on most (not all) things.