I don't know which is worse - your method for transferring files, or the fact that it sounds like fun and I really, really want to try it myself now...
You're seriously bemoaning the influence of money in the GOP primary, and with respect to the Paul candidacy at that?
No, I'm bemoaning the influence of money in American politics in general; methinks thou art reading more into my comment than what was actually stated.
If you don't firmly believe that money should not only be an influence in politics but the only influence, you're in the wrong damned place.
Would you mind rewording that without the quadruple negative? I would love to offer a cogent response, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
You must not be familiar with Celine's Third Law: "An honest politician is a national calamity."
I wasn't, until I looked it up just now... kinda wish I hadn't, the first two laws are eerily accurate.
However, the Third Law seems fundamentally flawed; First, the author assumes "Corrupt politicians simply line their own pockets," which is not quite true - they line the pockets of their political benefactors and allies as well, who have their own political agendas but are not beholden to taxpayers by way of holding elected office.
Consider the why and how of the crooked politician's greed - while they personally may have no allegiance towards a particular political ideology, the people who are bribing them (let's call a duck a duck, shall we?) very much do, and some have the financial backing necessary to buy enough crooked politicians to effectively run the nation by proxy. For example, take a look at how much money Goldman Sachs spends on politicians, then look at how those politicians vote when it comes to matters of regulating banks, or any other social aspect that may affect an institution such as GS.
The other problem with this Third Law is the assumption that a single politician would be able to enact massive, sweeping social change all by themselves, which we all know is not how things work... especially when you consider how massively outnumbered they would be by the bought-and--paid-for corporate spokesmonkeys.
My understanding is that "weapons grade" only refers to a degree of purity, and not to actual intent...
Nice catch; technically all fissible material is "weapons grade," in the sense that it can be used to irradiate folks who would rather not be irradiated.
This is how you discern a conservative: they speculate about things they have no knowledge of, forming conclusions based only on what they believe "ought to be" and then use that speculation as the basis for their beliefs.
This is how you discern a hypocritical asshole: someone who does exactly the thing they're bitching about someone else doing, but without noticing it.
Yea, but facts won't stop the media, morons, and plain-ol' haters from trying to pretend he's not in this race to win it, or that he's somehow worse than the bought-and-paid-for corporate spokesmonkeys he's running against.
The target audience isn't necessarily a tech savvy one. The more the user is allowed to do, the higher the potential for mishaps. When you promise a customer a fancy piece of shiny hardware and advertise it like a high-tech toaster - "press here, then magic happens" they aren't expecting a full blown PC with all the associated quirks, tweaks, gradual cluttering/slowing down/ buggyness, etc. They are expecting a magic little plastic box that does all the things that were printed on the outside of the big cardboard box it arrived in.
That's part of the problem, if you ask me: by patronizing this attitude of "I don't want to know how it works, so long as it does," society in effect creates a disincentive to learn what is going on 'behind-the-scenes,' and thus subconsciously trains people to never question the how or why, just accept your fate (and license agreement) without question like a good little drone.
I fear for future generations if this trend continues - the world is pretty fucked up right now, largely due to general indifference on the part of the populace-at-large, and the less attention we pay to the actions of the powerful few (governments and corporations), the more fucked up it will become.
... by locking things down, it lets the manufacturer ensure the device works the way they want it to until they make it obsolete.
... which forces the consumer to play by the device maker's rules, which doesn't really mesh with the whole 'free-market capitalism' idea.
On the other hand, if a person is willing to plunk down hundreds or thousands of dollars to essentially 'rent' a piece of hardware, then give the same company even more money to 'rent' the software that the hardware runs, that's their prerogative.
I personally find that pretty durn stupid, trusting a for-profit corporation, but what can I say, I failed Normalcy 101. Miserably.
If I want a device that works the way I want it to, I stay away from Apple, tablets and smart phones, and get a real computer.
Really, that's pretty much what's kept me out of the tablet market... well, that and having difficulty coming up with a scenario in which a tablet would be more useful than either my smartphone or laptop, but I digress. I run CM7 on my Droid X, and aside from issues with recording video, I think it's the cat's ass! When I become eligible for an upgrade next month, I fully intend to keep my DX and turn it into a portable network analyzer/pen testing device (Here's hoping for Backtrack: Android Edition).
That's assuming I actually do upgrade; there seems to be a trend among hardware manufacturers to lock their devices down even more than before, going so far as to seal the power system so you can't even do a battery-pull, which is a serious turn off for me as a consumer.
Like the Makers say, 'If you can't open it, you don't own it," and I for one won't tolerate not owning the expensive devices I paid for.
Video games and toy robots aside, I can't think of any particular situation where this would provide a benevolent use, but I can imagine endless possible scenarios in which it could be used for malevolent purposes... Come to think of it, the example of a "Xbox... detect[ing] that you're in the mood for fighting games, and chang[ing] its splash screen accordingly" kind of exemplifies my point, since the reason it would react in such a way would be for marketing and advertising purposes, which are inherently evil IMO.
Sure, it's neat tech, but far less benign than the summary writer seems to find it.
Rioting and protesting because your views aren't represented and government is kind of pointless when you have 38% voter participation among your general age group.
Yea, and voting is kind of pointless when your options are "corrupt corporate whore #1" and "corrupt corporate whore #2."
[existing Canadian law] Section 351 already makes it illegal for anyone to wear a disguise to commit an indictable offence,
Is a peaceful protest and indictable offense in Canada?
Well, if Canadia is anything like Amerika, then "resisting arrest" is an indictable offense, even for lack of actual offense, so... yes.
Isn't the whole point of a peaceful protest to stand up as a citizen for or against some idea? Doesn't hiding behind a mask make that moot?
No. That's just silly.
Besides, what if the protest is against government regulation of mask-wearing? In that case, not wearing a mask would be counter to the protester ideal.
... "Fuck the police, they're violating our constitutional rights" despite the fact that the Supreme Court has long held that the right to peaceably assemble is limited by reasonable time and space constraints, and permit requirements are completely lawful.
K, I'm gonna lay some free-range truth on you here; whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you:
It doesn't matter one bit what the SCOTUS says when it comes to the Constitution - the fact remains that the Constitution is, by its own wording, the supreme, undeniable, unquestionable law of the land, and short of a Constitutional Amendment to the contrary, approved by 2/3 of the population, it's going to stay that way. As a matter of fact, if not for seditious turncoats such as yourself, we wouldn't have to be concerned about getting government approval to exercise our Constitutional rights, as no patriot in their right mind would ever allow such a travesty to occur, regardless of how they felt about the protest.
In summation: fuck you and your cow-towing to the political elite and their attempts to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to exercise my right to peaceably assemble whether you like it or not - you can take your 'permit' and shove it up your ass.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
That's in order of importance, ladies and gents; as the Fourth Amendment is part of the Constitution, our troops have a sworn duty to protect our right to be free from search (read: surveillance) first and foremost, regardless of who gave the order.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know which is worse - your method for transferring files, or the fact that it sounds like fun and I really, really want to try it myself now...
You bast-ed.
You're seriously bemoaning the influence of money in the GOP primary, and with respect to the Paul candidacy at that?
No, I'm bemoaning the influence of money in American politics in general; methinks thou art reading more into my comment than what was actually stated.
If you don't firmly believe that money should not only be an influence in politics but the only influence, you're in the wrong damned place.
Would you mind rewording that without the quadruple negative? I would love to offer a cogent response, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
You must not be familiar with Celine's Third Law: "An honest politician is a national calamity."
I wasn't, until I looked it up just now... kinda wish I hadn't, the first two laws are eerily accurate.
However, the Third Law seems fundamentally flawed; First, the author assumes "Corrupt politicians simply line their own pockets," which is not quite true - they line the pockets of their political benefactors and allies as well, who have their own political agendas but are not beholden to taxpayers by way of holding elected office.
Consider the why and how of the crooked politician's greed - while they personally may have no allegiance towards a particular political ideology, the people who are bribing them (let's call a duck a duck, shall we?) very much do, and some have the financial backing necessary to buy enough crooked politicians to effectively run the nation by proxy. For example, take a look at how much money Goldman Sachs spends on politicians, then look at how those politicians vote when it comes to matters of regulating banks, or any other social aspect that may affect an institution such as GS.
The other problem with this Third Law is the assumption that a single politician would be able to enact massive, sweeping social change all by themselves, which we all know is not how things work... especially when you consider how massively outnumbered they would be by the bought-and--paid-for corporate spokesmonkeys.
My understanding is that "weapons grade" only refers to a degree of purity, and not to actual intent...
Nice catch; technically all fissible material is "weapons grade," in the sense that it can be used to irradiate folks who would rather not be irradiated.
armed guards were surely on hand
This is how you discern a conservative: they speculate about things they have no knowledge of, forming conclusions based only on what they believe "ought to be" and then use that speculation as the basis for their beliefs.
This is how you discern a hypocritical asshole: someone who does exactly the thing they're bitching about someone else doing, but without noticing it.
What, you mean you don't?
Huh... so that's why L.A. is full of freaks and mutants...
Yea, but facts won't stop the media, morons, and plain-ol' haters from trying to pretend he's not in this race to win it, or that he's somehow worse than the bought-and-paid-for corporate spokesmonkeys he's running against.
Anyone else see that as a scathing social commentary regarding American political priorities?
Doesn't matter, voting for him anyway.
Hey, it could be worse: I could be planning to vote for one of the candidates owned by Goldman Sach's.
The target audience isn't necessarily a tech savvy one. The more the user is allowed to do, the higher the potential for mishaps. When you promise a customer a fancy piece of shiny hardware and advertise it like a high-tech toaster - "press here, then magic happens" they aren't expecting a full blown PC with all the associated quirks, tweaks, gradual cluttering/slowing down/ buggyness, etc. They are expecting a magic little plastic box that does all the things that were printed on the outside of the big cardboard box it arrived in.
That's part of the problem, if you ask me: by patronizing this attitude of "I don't want to know how it works, so long as it does," society in effect creates a disincentive to learn what is going on 'behind-the-scenes,' and thus subconsciously trains people to never question the how or why, just accept your fate (and license agreement) without question like a good little drone.
I fear for future generations if this trend continues - the world is pretty fucked up right now, largely due to general indifference on the part of the populace-at-large, and the less attention we pay to the actions of the powerful few (governments and corporations), the more fucked up it will become.
... by locking things down, it lets the manufacturer ensure the device works the way they want it to until they make it obsolete.
... which forces the consumer to play by the device maker's rules, which doesn't really mesh with the whole 'free-market capitalism' idea.
On the other hand, if a person is willing to plunk down hundreds or thousands of dollars to essentially 'rent' a piece of hardware, then give the same company even more money to 'rent' the software that the hardware runs, that's their prerogative.
I personally find that pretty durn stupid, trusting a for-profit corporation, but what can I say, I failed Normalcy 101. Miserably.
If I want a device that works the way I want it to, I stay away from Apple, tablets and smart phones, and get a real computer.
Really, that's pretty much what's kept me out of the tablet market... well, that and having difficulty coming up with a scenario in which a tablet would be more useful than either my smartphone or laptop, but I digress. I run CM7 on my Droid X, and aside from issues with recording video, I think it's the cat's ass! When I become eligible for an upgrade next month, I fully intend to keep my DX and turn it into a portable network analyzer/pen testing device (Here's hoping for Backtrack: Android Edition).
That's assuming I actually do upgrade; there seems to be a trend among hardware manufacturers to lock their devices down even more than before, going so far as to seal the power system so you can't even do a battery-pull, which is a serious turn off for me as a consumer.
Like the Makers say, 'If you can't open it, you don't own it," and I for one won't tolerate not owning the expensive devices I paid for.
How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)
Strawman - as the consumer who purchased and supposedly owns the device, that should be for me to decide, not Apple.
Woz was a clever engineer, but I think geekdom views him with rose tinted spectacles. He was not that great.
Jobs was a clever advertiser, but I think salesdom views him with rose tinted spectacles. He was not that great.
The street! She runs both ways!
It just turned out that most people were ready for something that will get out of their way and "just work".
A more succinct endorsement for Windows, I have not seen.
You don't want to know where the charger port goes.
Left nasal passage.
The right one is reserved for the Nasal/Finger Connection, or NFC for short.
But horrifically naive.
Video games and toy robots aside, I can't think of any particular situation where this would provide a benevolent use, but I can imagine endless possible scenarios in which it could be used for malevolent purposes... Come to think of it, the example of a "Xbox... detect[ing] that you're in the mood for fighting games, and chang[ing] its splash screen accordingly" kind of exemplifies my point, since the reason it would react in such a way would be for marketing and advertising purposes, which are inherently evil IMO.
Sure, it's neat tech, but far less benign than the summary writer seems to find it.
"Why is it called an eyePhone?" - "Ehm, I'll explain after I install it."
You think that's bad, wait 'til they install the earpiece...
Unless Anon can call in an airstrike, or single-handedly cripple a first-world nation's financial system, they don't know what "power" is.
Big talk from a guy in hiding.
|So how many guns and tanks does Anonymous control?
Maybe all of them?
Just the ones that are networked.
Confirmed.
Unless it's secured from governments, agents provocateurs, corporate raiders, etc, it's not secure.
These days, it's not just random Slavs looking to jack your CC info you need to keep watch for...
It is called voting.
Rioting and protesting because your views aren't represented and government is kind of pointless when you have 38% voter participation among your general age group.
Yea, and voting is kind of pointless when your options are "corrupt corporate whore #1" and "corrupt corporate whore #2."
What's yer point?
Only 10 years? You're a far more compassionate person than I.
IMO, Tyrants should hang from the neck until dead. Period.
No mercy for the wicked.
TFA says:
[existing Canadian law] Section 351 already makes it illegal for anyone to wear a disguise to commit an indictable offence,
Is a peaceful protest and indictable offense in Canada?
Well, if Canadia is anything like Amerika, then "resisting arrest" is an indictable offense, even for lack of actual offense, so... yes.
Isn't the whole point of a peaceful protest to stand up as a citizen for or against some idea? Doesn't hiding behind a mask make that moot?
No. That's just silly.
Besides, what if the protest is against government regulation of mask-wearing? In that case, not wearing a mask would be counter to the protester ideal.
It's an unlawful protest if you don't have a permit.
Got one right here.
... "Fuck the police, they're violating our constitutional rights" despite the fact that the Supreme Court has long held that the right to peaceably assemble is limited by reasonable time and space constraints, and permit requirements are completely lawful.
K, I'm gonna lay some free-range truth on you here; whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you:
It doesn't matter one bit what the SCOTUS says when it comes to the Constitution - the fact remains that the Constitution is, by its own wording, the supreme, undeniable, unquestionable law of the land, and short of a Constitutional Amendment to the contrary, approved by 2/3 of the population, it's going to stay that way. As a matter of fact, if not for seditious turncoats such as yourself, we wouldn't have to be concerned about getting government approval to exercise our Constitutional rights, as no patriot in their right mind would ever allow such a travesty to occur, regardless of how they felt about the protest.
In summation: fuck you and your cow-towing to the political elite and their attempts to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to exercise my right to peaceably assemble whether you like it or not - you can take your 'permit' and shove it up your ass.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
That's in order of importance, ladies and gents; as the Fourth Amendment is part of the Constitution, our troops have a sworn duty to protect our right to be free from search (read: surveillance) first and foremost, regardless of who gave the order.