Is Euthanasia moral? I find this one works very well. If a person is in horrible pain, and will die, is it moral to kill them? If they want you too? if they are unable to answer if they want you to?
Doctors(i am a fan of House): if a patient is sick and refuses a treatment that will save them, is it moral to give them the treatment without their knowledge if they wouldn't find out? Then it is moral to let someone you could save die, if they say dont save them? If u give it to them, it is moral to force your decisions on someone about something that has nothing to do with you. Is it moral to eat meat? To butcher animals for food? Some say yes some say no. if morality is objective one is wrong. Romans 14:2-23 ESV One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind....
Yes. Yes it is. A simple look at the differences of what has been considered "moral" through out history makes it very obvious. Shoot at one time it was moral to burn people at the stake. In Rome morality was completely different than now. People died for entertainment. In the Bible, it was not only moral if u conquered a kingdom to slaughter the women and children, but absolutely required by God. Certain sects of Islam, it is completely moral to kill any infidels. Others it is a terrible sin. and that's in a single religion. This wasn't one or two people being "amoral". It is the entire morality of cultures being fundamentally different. People i have encountered who push objective morality often are just using their morality as the "true morality". Often this is based on incorrect knowledge(whether being led astray by a smart corrupt individual or just lack of knowledge) of their chosen religion. Funny thing is, no religion i have encountered has maintained a single standard of morality. If morality is objective, what is moral exactly? I bet you answer with your morals. and anyone who doesn't have your morals, is "amoral" right?
Since in reality, we are still missing the key parts of the quantum world and how it operates, it seems very odd to me to assume we can have good evidence quantum computing wont reach the level we one day hope. I am not saying we will, but the possibility is there(and therefor the research into it should continue). We simply dont know enough to say one way or the other but the research may give us that answer.
And the flying machine comment seems rather appropriate. They didnt have the knowledge of aerodynamics to say it couldn't be done but they did. One more thing, if u look at it in large enough timescales, it is possible to pigs to eventually fly, with evolution and all.
It's nothing to do with "good" or "evil", it's what you do with the results. If you hack, say, Hamas, and then use that information to your advantage, you are Black Hat. If you hack Hamas, then walk in through their front door with a report of how you owned them (pwned, pwnz0red, whatever) and how they can fix their systems, you are White Hat.
Not quite. If they REQUEST that you "hack" them and you do so, you're a white hat. If you do it without being asked, then you're a black hat. Walking through the door later is a CYA technique only.
i have to agree here. HBgary seems black hat to me. The way i have always understood it: Black hat: exploits security flaws.
White hat: offers tips on improvement through request
Grey hat: Offers tips on improvement without any request. also i dont think walking through the door later is a CYA only, i think there are people who do the hacking then alert who they hack for the simple excitement of it without wanting to cause harm, i dont feel right calling these people black hats. side note: when u do that tho, u are at the mercy of the company u just confessed to.
no i said thats when it got popular and started flooding the internet. did u even read? "4chan is were Anonymous got popular(with the habo raids in 05 or 06) but that doesn't mean it started there" the part after the but makes your comment worthless. I done with argueing with someone who A. is probably never been close to being involved and got their info from somewhere like fox news.(or possibly a/b fanboy creeper) B. Doesn't have the basic reading comprehension of a 5th grader.
U want to think Anon is nothing more than teens looking at porn, u have fun. U will just look like a idiot to people who know.
Wow do u have no reasoning ability? 1.Anon is a movement/idea. It is in no way restricted to 4chan members/users. and u are correct leadership has changed pretty regularly. But when we are talking about the mastercard issues and we discuss Anon, when mean the current functioning body that has been coordinating these attacks, that Anon group has a leadership group.. um buddy... Its like say we caught the rebel leaders....does it mean we caught every rebellions leaders? no it would be stupid to even think that. It means we caught whatever rebellions leaders we are talking about (context clues)the difference is Anon doesnt use different names, the name we use is the name of our movement. The problem u have is disassociating the Group activities of a Anonymous group(there are many) and the Anonymous movement. The groups have leaders. the movement doesnt. Groups have opinions, goals, motivations. The movement doesn't. Anon could technically fight itself. 2. 4chan is were Anonymous got popular(with the habo raids in 05 or 06) but that doesn't mean it started there or was just there(other raid boards for instance were doing it around the same time as 4chan infact those raids were organized on 7chan, ebaums, and 4chan at the same time and that was the first big one). U read your history and im sryn i only lived it. 3. Anon isnt a defined group, hence all the intelligent people calling it a movement. There isnt a real group identity, thats the point of the movement, we are everyone, every side of every argument. The movement is passive, the groups are not. 4."It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan." that is incorrect in every way. and it was never "Just" a name for 4chan people. It was never a name for 4chan people at all. there was never a Anon=4chan for anyone involved. That was how it was sold to the outside because thats where it got the spotlight. Also what better way to soil an image than say it is directly related to the filth on that site. so i fail to see how i am grasping straws or making straw man argument. Your comment is outright wrong. Not everyone who was on 4chan was a member of anon and not all members of anon were 4chan users this i KNOW. Because i was one of them.(and i mean back in 05 before the meme spread) some came from ebaum's some from 7chan others from other places.
i think i see the problem here. Some of us are discussing Anon as this Anon group. The one that hit mastercard and the others. The rest of u are discussing The idea of Anon. U could almost think of it like rebels. If i start a rebellion group and was the one that organized it together but everything was voted on(think sons of anarchy style.) I would still more than likely be called the rebel leader because most of the work was on me. Now that doesnt mean i am every rebel groups leader.
No the idea of Anon has no leader, no members, no stances. It is a title any group can take on and use, that's why it is so awesome.
Now when we are refering to a story(like the one we are currently posting in) and it says Anon we are refering to this anon and we know that when this one is gone there will be another and another and another, but for the sake of coherence, assume we mean the group currently being discussed and not the millions of other anon initiatives.
"No, really, you're just showing you don't know what you're talking about here. "Anonymous" isn't some "small group of people", and never was. It's a name for posters on 4chan. That's pretty much it. Some of these people do things, sometimes. They use the name "Anonymous" when doing so, sometimes. Sometimes people who don't even post on 4chan use the name. There is no organization, and there is no membership." Outright wrong, I have been involved with several Anon initiatives that had nothing at all to do with 4chan.(i dislike 4chan personally and dont visit but i am very much part of the anon movement.)
"The name existed long before anyone was actually trying to use it for direct actions. It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan. This group of people was not "small". There was no "founder", other than moot and his helpers, and he has absolutely nothing at all to do with what people do under the name "Anonymous" nowadays." this made me laugh, as if the word anonymous was spawn when 4chan appeared, no buddy it was here before 4chan, the internet, and many other things. go back to creeping/b. from wikipedia Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a term used in two senses. As an Internet meme it represents the concept of many on-line community users, or the on-line community itself, acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal. It is also a label adopted by hacktivists who undertake protests and other actions under the notional title "Anonymous," which derives from the same meme. It is generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures(notice how it doesn't restrict to 4chan) dictionary=anonymous : of unknown name; whose name is withheld so no it wasnt used to describe 4chaners(infact 98% of the retards on 4chan are nowhere near anon, with their IP easily accessable.)
In EVERY anon event i have been a part of there has always been a small group at the top(which i admittably have never been a part of) the organized and pretty much ran things. Did they have absolute power? NO would the initiatives fall apart without them? yes.
A large number of Anon's involved in this have Never been involved in 4chan's crappy raids and whatnot. Infact a large number dont even visit 4chan. This ANON isnt the same as the one from 4chan.
And Visiting 4chan doesn't make u a ANON. You canhave never visited 4chan or hate everything about it.
while the leadership does change frequently and the members fluctuate there are certainly Key people who organize and send the commands to LoiC in anon. Also remember the Anon of this doesn't equal the anon of/b on 4chan. 2 very seperate entities(4chan's userbase leaning more towards IHM than the Current political endeavors of Anon).
And for you newblet, a few words of wisdom, It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove any doubt. I made that up btw.
even when the class system was in full swing, u had a commoner raise up(very) occasionally. Just because it isnt directly enforced by law doesnt mean we dont have a very defined class system.
The Confederate states LEGALLY seceded(the constitution allows it).
The South fought a defensive war, there were many more atrocities attributed to the north and their generals(who were the aggressors btw) than the south. So yea. Many of the Attrocities of the south(such as the starving and exposure at andersonville and other places) were things the southern souldiers had to deal with to but that is rarely mentioned when discussing those subjects. However the north had the same kind of prisons with many of the same issues but theirs where the option of the prison admins, not a lack of supplies.
but the point was that the second amendment was intended to protect people from thier government and quotes of people involved with the writing of said document saying this blantly do prove a point. And shit hasnt changed as much as u think. Governments still lie, steal, and oppress so it is not only as neccissary as in the 1700s but more so and trying to drag this confederates into this is nothing more than misdirection because u have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims where as the "gun nuts" have plenty.
First the parent of yours: RETARD u cant go around shooting people because you disagree. Its counterproductive. second to u:Wow u clearly have no clue about the second amendment. It was to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and the people having no way to defend themselves. The Creators of the constitution had just dealt with such a government and saw the need of the people to be able to defend themselves against it. In District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. Now a militia is the purpose to protect yourselves from external threat. so if the amendment doesnt deal with a militia(which is any military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense) they cant be refering to only external threats or it would just be for militia's. It actually carried over from england.
I can see where your confusion comes in with the Pennsylvania Constitution's version. "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".
from wikipedia: In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
* deterring undemocratic government;(please read this one carefully)
* repelling invasion;
* suppressing insurrection;
* facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
* participating in law enforcement;
* enabling the people to organize a militia system,
now to toss that more guns=more crime(or gun control will lead to less crime which honestly makes me lol) out the window. read about KENNESAW, Ga. There is a law stating all legal adults must carry a concealed weapon at all times. Now if the world works how the Anti-gun nuts say there should be murder and chaos in the streets, yet not only did this not happen, Crime has plummeted. Now i have a good idea why the crime dropped. Do you?
I even pointed out that moore's law results in more speed. BUT MOORE's law had nothing to do with speed increasing, that is a side effect. So what u dont seem to get is we know comps have been getting faster and software advancement has caused it to speed up more but this is a moot statement when discussing moore's law....MOORE'S law is about fabrication not performance. So software advancement has no relation to it.
We see what the guy is saying but he is saying it completely wrong. And for some people(seems i am not the only one) moore's law concept issues is sorta a pet peeve
Wow. lets see if i can explain your error. Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years It has nothing at all to do with processor speed or performance(although those are sideeffects) it only concerns itself with number of transistors. The comment is saying that moore's law is actually misleading or irrelevant, That algorithims speed us up more than more transistors(although that is very misleading). In order for "Progress In Algorithms Beats Moore's Law" to be true, that means the algorithm actually increased the number of transistors on the circuit(which is preposterous) so to quote the other guy, "So how did they magically increase the number of transistors using software? Oh whait, someone didn't know what Moore's law was..."
TL:DR "Even more remarkable - and even less widely understood - is that in many areas, performance gains due to improvements in algorithms have vastly exceeded even the dramatic performance gains due to increased processor speed." has absolutely nothing to do with Moore's Law because Moore's law doesn't concern itself with performance. And the guy above u was correct in his comment.
Yes, and the Lancet surveys worked by asking people in a particular area (I do not remember which area of Iraq anymore, but I believe it was one of the areas of more intense fighting) if they knew anyone killed or injured by the war, assuming that each of those was a separate, actual event and then extrapolating to the entire country.
bingo, lancet surveys are straight misinformation. U can make a survey say anything u want./quote Just need to point out you don't offer any proof or citation yourself so how do you know the original figure is incorrect? Gut feeling?/quote
no, he used sense. and place like www.iraqbodycount.org use things like police shootouts and include terrorist casualties yet push they're from page like it is a US deal.
To say WE(American/coalition military) killed 500k people is a sign of someone spitting what they heard on TV back. There has been 500k civilian death since 2003 including= civilians killed by coalition forces, civilians killed by Terrorist factions(car bombs, suicide bombers, random attacks on civilians), people killed by police during shootouts, and just about anything else they can term a violent death.
WOW!!! So is the rest of the world aware that the Swedish Police department is now directly publishing their own on line news page. HMMMM can't seem to find it with any search engine, just the regular Police website that doesn't post news items.
But wait, Press conferences, official comments, unofficial comments made by official people like the Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny, like when she said she is requesting the court order to question Mr Assange because he is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
The police doesn't post its news, it does the same shit as every other, they have interviews, conferences, and announcements. i swear the average IQ of/. is rapidly deteriorating.
It is better to not speak and be thought an idiot then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
i love the occasional idiot who thinks he is the only person capable of getting news, theSwedish pushed the idea that it was rape.before american media picked it up i was reading about the "rape" charge. American media just picked up the bullshit flowing out of the local shit. Its called Character Assassination and all countries love to use it.
quite a leap? hardly so imo. This thought i think is verified in the internet kill switch debate. A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing, if u think use of that will stop at copyright u are ignorant of politics and american history. Case and point= Wikileaks(i know we are all sick of hearing the name) they keep getting taken down based on a political reasons, not legal ones.
i hardly see this as evil. the ONLY reason net nuetrality is a issue is due to the lack of choices. If i have the ability to leave and go to another provider then it will enforce itself(i.e. if u start throttling the bandwidth people will leave and go to someone who doesn't.) With landline internet usually there is one company that services the area (by contract with the local government) and several very lesser services that are barely useable. That is why we need the net nuetrality regulation.
Wireless doesn't have the same limitations on choices. If wireless is offered, very rarely is it only offered by one provider. So if your wireless provider is throttling you, leave and go to one who says they wont.
See theoretically i could start my own wireless internet service with enough startup cash. however i cannot start my own cable internet company in my city because comcast has a deal with the local gov. The only time government regulation should come in is when you cant leave who is exploiting you. Thats called free market(well almost free).
it is a problem....i have been and constantly see throttling on my connection... Throttling is where i pay for 3mbs yet for some reasons(not on peak time) i see a sudden drastic drop in my speed(usually down to.5 to 1 mbs) now remember this is offpeak times(i am a night guy) and my neighbor who is a email facebook person doesn't see these drops even during peak hours. If i pay for a bandwidth i should get it no matter where i am visiting....that is what net neutrality is. just because i watch vids on my comp doesnt mean i shouldnt get the bandwidth i PAID FOR!!!.People who are argueing it isnt broke are either:
A.In with the Megacorps that are the villain here or B. have no idea about what net neutrality is and need to educate themselves before talking.
umm..no it hasn't worked out....our speeds are some of the lowest in the modern world with some of the highest prices. there are only 2 ways to make access to the internet working....ban this bullshit monopoly companies make with cities....or regulate the shit out of comcast so i don't drop down to.5 mbs when i am paying for 3 just because i use all of the bandwidth i am paying for..
First off u are trying to mislead. We are not handing the internet over to the government. We are asking them to watch over the crooks who run the doorways to the internet.
Why do you think Comcast doesn't have a right to regulate traffic on its own networks
Well my uniformed friend. The internet requires one of 2 things to happen.
1. Either there is NEt neutrality enforced by FCC.(noone else will)
Why do i think Comcast doesnt have the right to bottleneck my bandwidth? Because they are the only internet in my city, They have a special deal with the local gov to prevent any other internet companies from infringing on their territory. This is called a monopoly and has been sanctioned by our governments as ways to develop infrastructure. Now if u are going to prevent me from having choices then u need to regulate the ones who get the monopoly(to put in a easy way, the internet needs the same kind of regulation the power company monopolies have).
2. NO GOVERNMENT SACTIONED MONOPOLIES. The only way a free market(which we sorta have) can function is is joe blow can open he own ISP when comcast throttles him. He then says, "Come to My ISP where i wont throttle u." anyone with have a mind moves and all the nerds tell their friends to move and to remain competitive Comcast has to treat thier customers right. Unforunately comcast has cut out the competition and therefore can treat their customers anyway they want.....my internet is out atleast 2 days a week. Untold downtime during late hours, I hate comcast yet i have nowhere i can go. The only other option is DSL that runs somewhere around 256k.
I seriously wonder where net neutrality supporters are getting this notion that the government is neutral at all.The GOP will probably take Congress and prevent a government takeover of the internet--thank goodness. It would be a crushing blow to freedom of speech and the flowing of ideas. The government FUCKS UP EVERYTHING IT DOES.
Are u serious what kind of arguement is that? here we go. Right the government is far from neutral. However they are more subject to us than comcast. ontop of that this is really Government against government. The fcc does stupid stuff but the do good to. Take your arguement to other areas...bank reform(well the government fubars everything let the banks care for themselves) With that mentality the government should just sit there and do absolutely nothing.........well then they aren;t a government.
Freedom of speech stands to be protected under Net nuetrality. I truely wonder if u even understand the concept. Net nuetrality (in its most basic form) is u pay for a bandwidth(which unless i ordered wrong, my bill is for 3mbs not 3mbs to some websites and.5 to others) regardless of where u are going u should get that bandwidth. The way comcast wants it, its like if i filled my car with gas....now if i drive to store i get 25 mpg but if i go to someone the gasstation has a deal with, i get 35 mpg but they charge me for 35 regardless of where i am going. how is that not a fubared business system?
the result to the handsoff idea: A tiered internet(which several isps have already begun talking with companies about) which consists of u have to pay to visit certain sites. For the news and email package: $29.99 If u want face book thats an extra 4 bucks. Now if u want to game well that take more bandwidth and gamers tend to spend more online so that is a $55 package. Now for the freedom of speech. U think if comcast is limiting access to sites like youtube(which is one of the big ones comcast plans on hitting) they wont to joe blows site? If i cant get to his site i cant read his opinion and he has lost his voice on the internet.
Stop with the shitty fear mongering, If u think comcast side has done good to protect the freedom of speech please show me
ONE time. There is a reason they were voted shittest company.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Euthanasia moral? I find this one works very well. If a person is in horrible pain, and will die, is it moral to kill them? If they want you too? if they are unable to answer if they want you to?
Doctors(i am a fan of House): if a patient is sick and refuses a treatment that will save them, is it moral to give them the treatment without their knowledge if they wouldn't find out? Then it is moral to let someone you could save die, if they say dont save them? If u give it to them, it is moral to force your decisions on someone about something that has nothing to do with you.
Is it moral to eat meat? To butcher animals for food? Some say yes some say no. if morality is objective one is wrong.
Romans 14:2-23 ESV
One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind....
No. No, it's not.
Yes. Yes it is. A simple look at the differences of what has been considered "moral" through out history makes it very obvious. Shoot at one time it was moral to burn people at the stake. In Rome morality was completely different than now. People died for entertainment. In the Bible, it was not only moral if u conquered a kingdom to slaughter the women and children, but absolutely required by God. Certain sects of Islam, it is completely moral to kill any infidels. Others it is a terrible sin. and that's in a single religion. This wasn't one or two people being "amoral". It is the entire morality of cultures being fundamentally different.
People i have encountered who push objective morality often are just using their morality as the "true morality". Often this is based on incorrect knowledge(whether being led astray by a smart corrupt individual or just lack of knowledge) of their chosen religion. Funny thing is, no religion i have encountered has maintained a single standard of morality.
If morality is objective, what is moral exactly? I bet you answer with your morals. and anyone who doesn't have your morals, is "amoral" right?
Since in reality, we are still missing the key parts of the quantum world and how it operates, it seems very odd to me to assume we can have good evidence quantum computing wont reach the level we one day hope. I am not saying we will, but the possibility is there(and therefor the research into it should continue). We simply dont know enough to say one way or the other but the research may give us that answer.
And the flying machine comment seems rather appropriate. They didnt have the knowledge of aerodynamics to say it couldn't be done but they did.
One more thing, if u look at it in large enough timescales, it is possible to pigs to eventually fly, with evolution and all.
It's nothing to do with "good" or "evil", it's what you do with the results. If you hack, say, Hamas, and then use that information to your advantage, you are Black Hat. If you hack Hamas, then walk in through their front door with a report of how you owned them (pwned, pwnz0red, whatever) and how they can fix their systems, you are White Hat.
Not quite. If they REQUEST that you "hack" them and you do so, you're a white hat. If you do it without being asked, then you're a black hat. Walking through the door later is a CYA technique only.
i have to agree here. HBgary seems black hat to me.
The way i have always understood it: Black hat: exploits security flaws.
White hat: offers tips on improvement through request
Grey hat: Offers tips on improvement without any request.
also i dont think walking through the door later is a CYA only, i think there are people who do the hacking then alert who they hack for the simple excitement of it without wanting to cause harm, i dont feel right calling these people black hats.
side note: when u do that tho, u are at the mercy of the company u just confessed to.
no i said thats when it got popular and started flooding the internet. /b fanboy creeper)
did u even read?
"4chan is were Anonymous got popular(with the habo raids in 05 or 06) but that doesn't mean it started there" the part after the but makes your comment worthless.
I done with argueing with someone who
A. is probably never been close to being involved and got their info from somewhere like fox news.(or possibly a
B. Doesn't have the basic reading comprehension of a 5th grader.
U want to think Anon is nothing more than teens looking at porn, u have fun. U will just look like a idiot to people who know.
Wow do u have no reasoning ability?
1.Anon is a movement/idea. It is in no way restricted to 4chan members/users. and u are correct leadership has changed pretty regularly. But when we are talking about the mastercard issues and we discuss Anon, when mean the current functioning body that has been coordinating these attacks, that Anon group has a leadership group.. um buddy... Its like say we caught the rebel leaders....does it mean we caught every rebellions leaders? no it would be stupid to even think that. It means we caught whatever rebellions leaders we are talking about
(context clues)the difference is Anon doesnt use different names, the name we use is the name of our movement. The problem u have is disassociating the Group activities of a Anonymous group(there are many) and the Anonymous movement. The groups have leaders. the movement doesnt. Groups have opinions, goals, motivations. The movement doesn't. Anon could technically fight itself.
2. 4chan is were Anonymous got popular(with the habo raids in 05 or 06) but that doesn't mean it started there or was just there(other raid boards for instance were doing it around the same time as 4chan infact those raids were organized on 7chan, ebaums, and 4chan at the same time and that was the first big one). U read your history and im sryn i only lived it.
3. Anon isnt a defined group, hence all the intelligent people calling it a movement. There isnt a real group identity, thats the point of the movement, we are everyone, every side of every argument. The movement is passive, the groups are not.
4."It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan." that is incorrect in every way. and it was never "Just" a name for 4chan people. It was never a name for 4chan people at all. there was never a Anon=4chan for anyone involved. That was how it was sold to the outside because thats where it got the spotlight. Also what better way to soil an image than say it is directly related to the filth on that site.
so i fail to see how i am grasping straws or making straw man argument. Your comment is outright wrong. Not everyone who was on 4chan was a member of anon and not all members of anon were 4chan users this i KNOW. Because i was one of them.(and i mean back in 05 before the meme spread)
some came from ebaum's some from 7chan others from other places.
i think i see the problem here. Some of us are discussing Anon as this Anon group. The one that hit mastercard and the others.
The rest of u are discussing The idea of Anon. U could almost think of it like rebels. If i start a rebellion group and was the one that organized it together but everything was voted on(think sons of anarchy style.) I would still more than likely be called the rebel leader because most of the work was on me.
Now that doesnt mean i am every rebel groups leader.
No the idea of Anon has no leader, no members, no stances. It is a title any group can take on and use, that's why it is so awesome.
Now when we are refering to a story(like the one we are currently posting in) and it says Anon we are refering to this anon and we know that when this one is gone there will be another and another and another, but for the sake of coherence, assume we mean the group currently being discussed and not the millions of other anon initiatives.
"No, really, you're just showing you don't know what you're talking about here. "Anonymous" isn't some "small group of people", and never was. It's a name for posters on 4chan. That's pretty much it. Some of these people do things, sometimes. They use the name "Anonymous" when doing so, sometimes. Sometimes people who don't even post on 4chan use the name. There is no organization, and there is no membership."
Outright wrong, I have been involved with several Anon initiatives that had nothing at all to do with 4chan.(i dislike 4chan personally and dont visit but i am very much part of the anon movement.)
"The name existed long before anyone was actually trying to use it for direct actions. It used to just be a name for people who looked at porn on 4chan. This group of people was not "small". There was no "founder", other than moot and his helpers, and he has absolutely nothing at all to do with what people do under the name "Anonymous" nowadays." /b.
this made me laugh, as if the word anonymous was spawn when 4chan appeared, no buddy it was here before 4chan, the internet, and many other things. go back to creeping
from wikipedia
Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a term used in two senses. As an Internet meme it represents the concept of many on-line community users, or the on-line community itself, acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal. It is also a label adopted by hacktivists who undertake protests and other actions under the notional title "Anonymous," which derives from the same meme. It is generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures(notice how it doesn't restrict to 4chan)
dictionary=anonymous : of unknown name; whose name is withheld
so no it wasnt used to describe 4chaners(infact 98% of the retards on 4chan are nowhere near anon, with their IP easily accessable.)
In EVERY anon event i have been a part of there has always been a small group at the top(which i admittably have never been a part of) the organized and pretty much ran things. Did they have absolute power? NO would the initiatives fall apart without them? yes.
A large number of Anon's involved in this have Never been involved in 4chan's crappy raids and whatnot. Infact a large number dont even visit 4chan. This ANON isnt the same as the one from 4chan.
And Visiting 4chan doesn't make u a ANON. You canhave never visited 4chan or hate everything about it.
while the leadership does change frequently and the members fluctuate there are certainly Key people who organize and send the commands to LoiC in anon. Also remember the Anon of this doesn't equal the anon of /b on 4chan. 2 very seperate entities(4chan's userbase leaning more towards IHM than the Current political endeavors of Anon).
And for you newblet, a few words of wisdom, It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove any doubt. I made that up btw.
even when the class system was in full swing, u had a commoner raise up(very) occasionally. Just because it isnt directly enforced by law doesnt mean we dont have a very defined class system.
i lold when i read this. Stupid people are funny.
It was the confederate army.
No to lay some civil war history on you.
The Confederate states LEGALLY seceded(the constitution allows it).
The South fought a defensive war, there were many more atrocities attributed to the north and their generals(who were the aggressors btw) than the south. So yea.
Many of the Attrocities of the south(such as the starving and exposure at andersonville and other places) were things the southern souldiers had to deal with to but that is rarely mentioned when discussing those subjects. However the north had the same kind of prisons with many of the same issues but theirs where the option of the prison admins, not a lack of supplies.
but the point was that the second amendment was intended to protect people from thier government and quotes of people involved with the writing of said document saying this blantly do prove a point. And shit hasnt changed as much as u think. Governments still lie, steal, and oppress so it is not only as neccissary as in the 1700s but more so and trying to drag this confederates into this is nothing more than misdirection because u have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims where as the "gun nuts" have plenty.
First the parent of yours: RETARD u cant go around shooting people because you disagree. Its counterproductive.
second to u:Wow u clearly have no clue about the second amendment. It was to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and the people having no way to defend themselves. The Creators of the constitution had just dealt with such a government and saw the need of the people to be able to defend themselves against it. In District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. Now a militia is the purpose to protect yourselves from external threat. so if the amendment doesnt deal with a militia(which is any military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense) they cant be refering to only external threats or it would just be for militia's. It actually carried over from england.
I can see where your confusion comes in with the Pennsylvania Constitution's version. "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".
from wikipedia: In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
* deterring undemocratic government;(please read this one carefully)
* repelling invasion;
* suppressing insurrection;
* facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
* participating in law enforcement;
* enabling the people to organize a militia system,
now to toss that more guns=more crime(or gun control will lead to less crime which honestly makes me lol) out the window.
read about KENNESAW, Ga. There is a law stating all legal adults must carry a concealed weapon at all times. Now if the world works how the Anti-gun nuts say there should be murder and chaos in the streets, yet not only did this not happen, Crime has plummeted. Now i have a good idea why the crime dropped. Do you?
I even pointed out that moore's law results in more speed.
BUT MOORE's law had nothing to do with speed increasing, that is a side effect.
So what u dont seem to get is we know comps have been getting faster and software advancement has caused it to speed up more but this is a moot statement when discussing moore's law....MOORE'S law is about fabrication not performance. So software advancement has no relation to it.
We see what the guy is saying but he is saying it completely wrong.
And for some people(seems i am not the only one) moore's law concept issues is sorta a pet peeve
Wow. lets see if i can explain your error.
Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years
It has nothing at all to do with processor speed or performance(although those are sideeffects) it only concerns itself with number of transistors.
The comment is saying that moore's law is actually misleading or irrelevant, That algorithims speed us up more than more transistors(although that is very misleading).
In order for "Progress In Algorithms Beats Moore's Law" to be true, that means the algorithm actually increased the number of transistors on the circuit(which is preposterous)
so to quote the other guy,
"So how did they magically increase the number of transistors using software? Oh whait, someone didn't know what Moore's law was..."
TL:DR
"Even more remarkable - and even less widely understood - is that in many areas, performance gains due to improvements in algorithms have vastly exceeded even the dramatic performance gains due to increased processor speed." has absolutely nothing to do with Moore's Law because Moore's law doesn't concern itself with performance. And the guy above u was correct in his comment.
Yes, and the Lancet surveys worked by asking people in a particular area (I do not remember which area of Iraq anymore, but I believe it was one of the areas of more intense fighting) if they knew anyone killed or injured by the war, assuming that each of those was a separate, actual event and then extrapolating to the entire country.
bingo, lancet surveys are straight misinformation. U can make a survey say anything u want. /quote Just need to point out you don't offer any proof or citation yourself so how do you know the original figure is incorrect? Gut feeling? /quote
no, he used sense. and place like www.iraqbodycount.org use things like police shootouts and include terrorist casualties yet push they're from page like it is a US deal.
To say WE(American/coalition military) killed 500k people is a sign of someone spitting what they heard on TV back. There has been 500k civilian death since 2003 including= civilians killed by coalition forces, civilians killed by Terrorist factions(car bombs, suicide bombers, random attacks on civilians), people killed by police during shootouts, and just about anything else they can term a violent death.
WOW!!! So is the rest of the world aware that the Swedish Police department is now directly publishing their own on line news page. HMMMM can't seem to find it with any search engine, just the regular Police website that doesn't post news items.
But wait, Press conferences, official comments, unofficial comments made by official people like the Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny, like when she said she is requesting the court order to question Mr Assange because he is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
The police doesn't post its news, it does the same shit as every other, they have interviews, conferences, and announcements. i swear the average IQ of /. is rapidly deteriorating.
It is better to not speak and be thought an idiot then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
i love the occasional idiot who thinks he is the only person capable of getting news, theSwedish pushed the idea that it was rape.before american media picked it up i was reading about the "rape" charge. American media just picked up the bullshit flowing out of the local shit.
Its called Character Assassination and all countries love to use it.
quite a leap? hardly so imo. This thought i think is verified in the internet kill switch debate. A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing, if u think use of that will stop at copyright u are ignorant of politics and american history. Case and point= Wikileaks(i know we are all sick of hearing the name) they keep getting taken down based on a political reasons, not legal ones.
U dont lose rights, they are eroded away.
i hardly see this as evil.
the ONLY reason net nuetrality is a issue is due to the lack of choices. If i have the ability to leave and go to another provider then it will enforce itself(i.e. if u start throttling the bandwidth people will leave and go to someone who doesn't.) With landline internet usually there is one company that services the area (by contract with the local government) and several very lesser services that are barely useable. That is why we need the net nuetrality regulation.
Wireless doesn't have the same limitations on choices. If wireless is offered, very rarely is it only offered by one provider. So if your wireless provider is throttling you, leave and go to one who says they wont.
See theoretically i could start my own wireless internet service with enough startup cash. however i cannot start my own cable internet company in my city because comcast has a deal with the local gov. The only time government regulation should come in is when you cant leave who is exploiting you. Thats called free market(well almost free).
it is a problem....i have been and constantly see throttling on my connection... Throttling is where i pay for 3mbs yet for some reasons(not on peak time) i see a sudden drastic drop in my speed(usually down to .5 to 1 mbs) now remember this is offpeak times(i am a night guy) and my neighbor who is a email facebook person doesn't see these drops even during peak hours. If i pay for a bandwidth i should get it no matter where i am visiting....that is what net neutrality is. just because i watch vids on my comp doesnt mean i shouldnt get the bandwidth i PAID FOR!!! .People who are argueing it isnt broke are either:
A.In with the Megacorps that are the villain here or B. have no idea about what net neutrality is and need to educate themselves before talking.
umm..no it hasn't worked out....our speeds are some of the lowest in the modern world with some of the highest prices. there are only 2 ways to make access to the internet working....ban this bullshit monopoly companies make with cities....or regulate the shit out of comcast so i don't drop down to .5 mbs when i am paying for 3 just because i use all of the bandwidth i am paying for..
First off u are trying to mislead. We are not handing the internet over to the government. We are asking them to watch over the crooks who run the doorways to the internet. Why do you think Comcast doesn't have a right to regulate traffic on its own networks Well my uniformed friend. The internet requires one of 2 things to happen. 1. Either there is NEt neutrality enforced by FCC.(noone else will) Why do i think Comcast doesnt have the right to bottleneck my bandwidth? Because they are the only internet in my city, They have a special deal with the local gov to prevent any other internet companies from infringing on their territory. This is called a monopoly and has been sanctioned by our governments as ways to develop infrastructure. Now if u are going to prevent me from having choices then u need to regulate the ones who get the monopoly(to put in a easy way, the internet needs the same kind of regulation the power company monopolies have). 2. NO GOVERNMENT SACTIONED MONOPOLIES. The only way a free market(which we sorta have) can function is is joe blow can open he own ISP when comcast throttles him. He then says, "Come to My ISP where i wont throttle u." anyone with have a mind moves and all the nerds tell their friends to move and to remain competitive Comcast has to treat thier customers right. Unforunately comcast has cut out the competition and therefore can treat their customers anyway they want.....my internet is out atleast 2 days a week. Untold downtime during late hours, I hate comcast yet i have nowhere i can go. The only other option is DSL that runs somewhere around 256k. I seriously wonder where net neutrality supporters are getting this notion that the government is neutral at all.The GOP will probably take Congress and prevent a government takeover of the internet--thank goodness. It would be a crushing blow to freedom of speech and the flowing of ideas. The government FUCKS UP EVERYTHING IT DOES. Are u serious what kind of arguement is that? here we go. Right the government is far from neutral. However they are more subject to us than comcast. ontop of that this is really Government against government. The fcc does stupid stuff but the do good to. Take your arguement to other areas...bank reform(well the government fubars everything let the banks care for themselves) With that mentality the government should just sit there and do absolutely nothing.........well then they aren;t a government. Freedom of speech stands to be protected under Net nuetrality. I truely wonder if u even understand the concept. Net nuetrality (in its most basic form) is u pay for a bandwidth(which unless i ordered wrong, my bill is for 3mbs not 3mbs to some websites and .5 to others) regardless of where u are going u should get that bandwidth. The way comcast wants it, its like if i filled my car with gas....now if i drive to store i get 25 mpg but if i go to someone the gasstation has a deal with, i get 35 mpg but they charge me for 35 regardless of where i am going. how is that not a fubared business system?
the result to the handsoff idea: A tiered internet(which several isps have already begun talking with companies about) which consists of u have to pay to visit certain sites. For the news and email package: $29.99 If u want face book thats an extra 4 bucks. Now if u want to game well that take more bandwidth and gamers tend to spend more online so that is a $55 package. Now for the freedom of speech. U think if comcast is limiting access to sites like youtube(which is one of the big ones comcast plans on hitting) they wont to joe blows site? If i cant get to his site i cant read his opinion and he has lost his voice on the internet.
Stop with the shitty fear mongering, If u think comcast side has done good to protect the freedom of speech please show me
ONE time. There is a reason they were voted shittest company.