"A lot of people who follow the rabbit hole of liberty have already lost their friends and family to begin with, because they're willfully ignorant of something we believe very strongly in," he said. "And what we're creating is an individualist, intentional community, and I point out the individualist part because we're not a commune or a cult or anything; people can live wherever they want."
In other words, these are folks who are too radical for their own friends and family due to their extremist political beliefs. They also find themselves to be the only "sane" people around.
They either appreciate the joking and it may actually help, unlike being glum about them which will MOST CERTAINLY cause them harm. Same goes with pissing them off.
OR... They are so far gone psychologically that it doesn't matter if you are joking or crying while sitting on top of their head. So, where's the harm? You either can't make things worse, or there's a chance or making things better.
Oh, right! Now I remember! It's NOT about the person with cancer - it's about US being seen as someone who "grieves with them in this final moment" and not as an "insensitive jerk making fun of the poor, poor walking dead man".
Pretenses! Right! I keep forgetting that. Silly me. What can I say... It must be cause it feels kinda selfish and hypocritical to impose the idea on someone that they are already dead, while they are still very much alive - just so I could fit in better with what I think society expects of me, and thus feel good about myself.
And I don't know if someone told him to say it or if he really figured it out by himself - but Reynolds knew that.
From the moment I came aboard, I saw the challenge and opportunity in creating a classic yet modern day hero who can throw a punch, tell a joke, and kiss the girl. I saw the guy as a cross between Chuck Yeager and Han Solo.
What he gave for the camera though, was neither.
Also, they totally missed the opportunity to play the whole power of the will, mind over matter angle. Instead of going for the lame version of hero's journey and making it all about "being chosen".
First of all, it does not get tossed out. The whole point of warrantless DNA collection is about creating and maintaining a DNA database.
From TFA:
âoeMake no mistake about it: because of todayâ(TM)s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,â conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.
With that in mind... I can't go through your trash, take some of your fingerprints from there and leave them at the crime scene to frame you, nor can I mess up a crime scene by sprinkling the area with fingerprints from hundreds of people I gathered from a barbershop's dumpster.
The difference being that without the database, police would have to connect you to the crime first, take your DNA and compare it to the DNA I stole from you and left it at the scene of the crime. With the database, all they need to do is to find your DNA I left there. Naturally, for you to be in the database you'd have to be arrested first, sometime prior to me framing you. Anytime during your life.
Also, while those hundreds of DNA samples from the barbershop were once just decoys, now there's bound to be someone in that bunch who got arrested for something. Making them false positives. Or the usual suspects if you like that term better.
It was a bad movie cause it was unimaginative - while being about a character who is all about imagination.
Also it was all over the place - building up three different villains and none of them actually being THE villain. For fuck's sake, one is missing for the most of the movie, one gets eaten by another villain (after all the buildup) and one is just there so we'd have his origin story in THIS movie, not in the next one.
Then, the story jumps around for no reason other than "let's have a training montage". While we're at it, here are some characters for the comic book nerds. No, we won't give them any character or back story. Have some CGI instead.
Then, we're back to Earth... where our superhero basically does nothing superheroic. Unless you count him being all emmo and insecure. AND THEN... he fights the UltimateVillainTM, represented by a fucking CLOUD OF DUST. Whom he defeats by ripping of the ending from that Freddie Prinze Jr. and Matthew Lillard movie. The one with submarines in space.
And on top of all that, they really miscast Ryan Reynolds. Kyle Rayner - maybe. Hal Jordan...
Try "Legend". Though I'd say it's more like he peaked there than "jumped the shark". That was the last time he did anything resembling artistic expression. After that he started "making movies" instead of "creating" them.
Not that he's bad at it or anything. I like most of his movies. He makes perfectly watchable, mostly competently made (if we ignore G.I. Jane) and entertaining movies. Some of them win Oscars and other awards.
They're just... not anything special. They fell like you could have swapped the director for Tony Scott or Walter Hill or Ron Howard or these days Ben Affleck - and get the same or better movie.
I was going to refer to the volume of the atmosphere, then I changed sentence structure to talk about "depth" and thousands of cubic meters came out as thousands of kilometers of "depth".
Ah well... should have been doing something else anyway, instead of wasting time on Slashdot.
That is true, but it really doesn't matter all that much if 1.0e9 tons hit you in the form of a few large fragments or a million small ones.
Firing birdshot, buckshot and slugs has exactly the same effect on the target?
You are aware that our planet is continuously peppered by space debris, amounting to something like 10000 to 1000000 tonnes per year? Seen any nuclear winters lately as a result of all those impacts? Or those "toxic nitrogen oxides from the atmosphere heating" you're talking about?
There's an ocean of air above our heads, thousands of kilometers deep, perfectly capable of absorbing all of the impact from the smaller objects - be it kinetic or chemical. The big objects are a problem cause they make it through those thousands of kilometers largely intact.
Just like with birdshot. Stand far away, and it won't even scratch the target. Fire a slug of the same mass, from the same distance and with the same load, and it will go right through the target.
Cause yours is the second reply that got the point wrong.
But since I am lazy... I'll refer you to this post for most of it and just reply to things specific to your post here. Sorry. It's late here and I'd like to get some sleep.
...the tattoos and piercing... Personally, I do not have a problem with any of these. While I have done these in my past, (except the tattoos and piercing) and I still drink (but no longer to excess) They can now and in the future cost you a job; even at a future "young person" company. It is one thing to hire some of these people in the IT industry that most/.'ers are familiar with, but there are only so many jobs there and not everyone can do that work. How many businesses will be willing to hire someone with multiple tattoos that can not be covered up or facial piercings (e.g. nose rings, lip and brow piercing, etc.) Many will need to be in sales, and trust me, even young companies (especially young growing companies) are not willing to alienate their customers especially if they need to sell to the conservative "will somebody think of the children" crowd.
Sometimes they will just be needed to meet with clients. Even as a developer, I have needed to do this... One ex-employer specifically told me (after I was hired) that after technical interviews I was essentially hired, and the face to face interview was only to prove that I "clean cut." If I had tats, noticeable piercing, or even body odor, it would have killed the deal. The fact is if you meet with clients you represent the company, and they want a professional image.
Remember, the professional image is more than skin deep. If a client or customer loses your business card and/or contact information, they may google your name to try to find it. (or may do this just because they can...) If they do not like what they see, they will contact the business owner, and you will be forced to work on a different account, or if there is not enough work, you will be let go. You are only employed to bring value to a company. If you can do this or if others do it much better, do not expect to be employed very long.
Read my reply I linked above? Good.
Now... think about a society where tattoos and piercings are ubiquitous, say... as being black or female. Then, replace instances of tattoos or piercings being mentioned in your quote with nouns "black" or "woman" or "gay" or "handicapped". Yeah... It's that kind of a thing.
On a side note, I have neither nor do I find them appealing (still talking about tattoos and piercings)... but looking around, both are considered perfectly normal and akin to jewelery today. Not something reserved only for sailors and savages anymore.
If their clients are not as open-minded
Clients are as open minded as the society they come from is. Again... not today. Generation or two down the road. Maybe sooner. Who knows. Like I said... Today tattoos are like... pierced ears 20-30 years back. Short skirts on girls and long hair on guys before that. Or oral sex today.
I am very well aware that we had "Are you now, or have you ever been..." issues in the past and that we still do. What I was talking about though, is a future society.
One that has had generations of children grow up, have children of their own, who then have children themselves - with each generation growing up with the rules and values of "your past until adulthood doesn't count". Sorta kinda like the thing we are witnessing today with gay issues and what happened back in the day with race or gender.
Think back to the day when you could get in trouble for being black - and compare that to potential trouble a teenager making a fool of him/her-self today may get into in the future. Then run from there. Teenagers growing up getting in trouble or knowing someone who did, seeing something like that as unjust prosecution, raising their kids with those beliefs, campaigning against that, voting against that...
Same for shoplifting as a teenager. Who says it can't be treated the same way as a broken window? Have the kids work off the damage done and leave it at that.
Kids of today will simply grow up to hold the attitude that literally everyone has made mistakes in their past, especially so while young, and most things a person did won't be held against them.
Everyone already considers mistakes done as a toddler irrelevant, and most do so for mistakes done as a preteen as well. This will just push the age limit for acceptability of "sins of youth" further.
At the same time, it will shine some light on what we as a society are willing to forgive and forget on account of "being young and crazy". My guess... Drinking, drugs, questionable fashion choices in the form of tattoos and piercings... maybe even some small crimes like shoplifting. On the other hand, serious crimes probably won't be so easily forgiven.
But the most fun bit to watch will be what happens to the cases where one's old beliefs, ideas and words are brought back years later. Will it be OK for a young boy/man to join a radical group based on some rather violent ideas he, as an angry teenager, believes to be true, and later realizing how nonsensical it all was to just move on - or will he have no other choice but to stick with that crowd his entire life as it's the only group that will accept him?
But more importantly, not all ants are cannibals. Cockroaches generally are.
Because of that, borax has different effects on non-cannibalistic ants than on cannibalistic ants or cockroaches.
See, borax does not kill ants or cockroaches instantly. Instead, they munch on it happily and later their chitinous carapace starts to break apart because of the effect of boric acid on the chitin. Then, when they die back in the nest, literally crushed by other roaches, their cannibalistic comrades eat them and the boric acid in the chitin starts its work on them.
BUT, while it takes a tad longer for cockroaches to die from cracks in their carapaces, so they die inside the nest and become food, ants will die much sooner and outside the nest, never becoming food. AND they will still have whiff of both "Danger! Death!" pheromones AND borax on them when their comrades find them.
Your ants didn't evolve - you trained them to fear the smell of borax. What you need to do is try using less borax.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
I.e. Subsection 1(b) does not matter. ANY threat or action with guns or explosives against anything is automagically terrorism as long as they can claim that you were doing it for reasons under 1(c).
It is a very, very, VERY broad definition. Basically, you could get charged with a terrorist threat for saying things like "I should shot you for doing X" or even "I'm going to shoot that phone if it rings again!" - threat of disrupting an electronic system, automagic terrorism.
All they need from you is to answer one simple question. "Why?" BOOM! Instant ideology! Answering why, means that you have reasons, which means you reasoned "why" before doing it, which means you created specific rules and reasons to support your "why" - which means that you have an ideology. Which covers 1(c), which makes you a terrorist. Ta-DAH!
As for your argument for b and c not being satisfied, I already explained how police and their families ARE "a section of the public". And as for the vendetta - you can't have a vendetta without an ideology to base it on. Even if it is something as nonsensical as "I hate people wearing blue."
It is a premeditated, prolonged and continuous act of revenge. Again, things like that need specific reasoning and a set of rules WHY they need to continue - i.e. an ideology. It does not need to be logical or reasonable reasoning. Most vendettas aren't reasonable anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, Ron Paul supporters... apparently gravitating to the Republican side.
Though, my favorite quote is this:
"A lot of people who follow the rabbit hole of liberty have already lost their friends and family to begin with, because they're willfully ignorant of something we believe very strongly in," he said. "And what we're creating is an individualist, intentional community, and I point out the individualist part because we're not a commune or a cult or anything; people can live wherever they want."
In other words, these are folks who are too radical for their own friends and family due to their extremist political beliefs.
They also find themselves to be the only "sane" people around.
They either appreciate the joking and it may actually help, unlike being glum about them which will MOST CERTAINLY cause them harm.
Same goes with pissing them off.
OR... They are so far gone psychologically that it doesn't matter if you are joking or crying while sitting on top of their head.
So, where's the harm? You either can't make things worse, or there's a chance or making things better.
Oh, right! Now I remember!
It's NOT about the person with cancer - it's about US being seen as someone who "grieves with them in this final moment" and not as an "insensitive jerk making fun of the poor, poor walking dead man".
Pretenses! Right! I keep forgetting that. Silly me.
What can I say... It must be cause it feels kinda selfish and hypocritical to impose the idea on someone that they are already dead, while they are still very much alive - just so I could fit in better with what I think society expects of me, and thus feel good about myself.
Like a king.
Obad is Bosnian (also Croatian and Serbian) for horse-fly.
I think Ryan did an "ok" job at depicting both aspects: both cruising @ 30k feet and cruising for chicks.
And by the end of the film, he starts to "mellow out" to be the more mellow-risk-taker persona he is sometimes shown as having.
Problem is... he kinda missed the mark. Even the one he set for himself.
Hal Jordan is not supposed to be "risk taker" for the sake of taking risks.
He's supposed to be Chuck Yeager who gets a magic ring. Kinda like this, only with Abin Sur giving him the ring in the end.
And I don't know if someone told him to say it or if he really figured it out by himself - but Reynolds knew that.
From the moment I came aboard, I saw the challenge and opportunity in creating a classic yet modern day hero who can throw a punch, tell a joke, and kiss the girl. I saw the guy as a cross between Chuck Yeager and Han Solo.
What he gave for the camera though, was neither.
Also, they totally missed the opportunity to play the whole power of the will, mind over matter angle.
Instead of going for the lame version of hero's journey and making it all about "being chosen".
Well, technically, "The 13th Warrior" is based on "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton, which is based on Beowulf.
Haven't read "The Long Twilight", but from what I hear, it's more of a Thor vs. Loki kinda story.
First of all, it does not get tossed out. The whole point of warrantless DNA collection is about creating and maintaining a DNA database.
From TFA:
âoeMake no mistake about it: because of todayâ(TM)s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,â conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.
With that in mind...
I can't go through your trash, take some of your fingerprints from there and leave them at the crime scene to frame you, nor can I mess up a crime scene by sprinkling the area with fingerprints from hundreds of people I gathered from a barbershop's dumpster.
The difference being that without the database, police would have to connect you to the crime first, take your DNA and compare it to the DNA I stole from you and left it at the scene of the crime.
With the database, all they need to do is to find your DNA I left there.
Naturally, for you to be in the database you'd have to be arrested first, sometime prior to me framing you.
Anytime during your life.
Also, while those hundreds of DNA samples from the barbershop were once just decoys, now there's bound to be someone in that bunch who got arrested for something. Making them false positives.
Or the usual suspects if you like that term better.
It was a bad movie cause it was unimaginative - while being about a character who is all about imagination.
Also it was all over the place - building up three different villains and none of them actually being THE villain.
For fuck's sake, one is missing for the most of the movie, one gets eaten by another villain (after all the buildup) and one is just there so we'd have his origin story in THIS movie, not in the next one.
Then, the story jumps around for no reason other than "let's have a training montage".
While we're at it, here are some characters for the comic book nerds. No, we won't give them any character or back story.
Have some CGI instead.
Then, we're back to Earth... where our superhero basically does nothing superheroic.
Unless you count him being all emmo and insecure.
AND THEN... he fights the UltimateVillainTM, represented by a fucking CLOUD OF DUST.
Whom he defeats by ripping of the ending from that Freddie Prinze Jr. and Matthew Lillard movie. The one with submarines in space.
And on top of all that, they really miscast Ryan Reynolds.
Kyle Rayner - maybe. Hal Jordan...
Same way both "The 13th Warrior" and "Outlander" are based on Beowulf.
About the same thing, same characters, the central point is the same...
Try "Legend".
Though I'd say it's more like he peaked there than "jumped the shark".
That was the last time he did anything resembling artistic expression.
After that he started "making movies" instead of "creating" them.
Not that he's bad at it or anything. I like most of his movies.
He makes perfectly watchable, mostly competently made (if we ignore G.I. Jane) and entertaining movies.
Some of them win Oscars and other awards.
They're just... not anything special.
They fell like you could have swapped the director for Tony Scott or Walter Hill or Ron Howard or these days Ben Affleck - and get the same or better movie.
"Do, or do not. If it's done it can't be done again." - Mahatma Gandhi
I was going to refer to the volume of the atmosphere, then I changed sentence structure to talk about "depth" and thousands of cubic meters came out as thousands of kilometers of "depth".
Ah well... should have been doing something else anyway, instead of wasting time on Slashdot.
He did used to take month-long vacations in the stratosphere, and he strolled all alone through a fallout zone, so...
"Live long and prosperous, Frodo" - Mr. Yoda
That is true, but it really doesn't matter all that much if 1.0e9 tons hit you in the form of a few large fragments or a million small ones.
Firing birdshot, buckshot and slugs has exactly the same effect on the target?
You are aware that our planet is continuously peppered by space debris, amounting to something like 10000 to 1000000 tonnes per year?
Seen any nuclear winters lately as a result of all those impacts? Or those "toxic nitrogen oxides from the atmosphere heating" you're talking about?
There's an ocean of air above our heads, thousands of kilometers deep, perfectly capable of absorbing all of the impact from the smaller objects - be it kinetic or chemical.
The big objects are a problem cause they make it through those thousands of kilometers largely intact.
Just like with birdshot.
Stand far away, and it won't even scratch the target.
Fire a slug of the same mass, from the same distance and with the same load, and it will go right through the target.
...did it before anyone knew how to do it and walk away after.
Just ask Pyotr Ivanovich Dolgov.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=306
Someone will have none of that.
Agreeing. So... decadent.
As well it should.
I agree.
And I am aware of the rest of the things you mention.
My reasoning above is most likely informed by similar data.
TLDR: Yup.
Cause yours is the second reply that got the point wrong.
But since I am lazy... I'll refer you to this post for most of it and just reply to things specific to your post here.
Sorry. It's late here and I'd like to get some sleep.
Personally, I do not have a problem with any of these. While I have done these in my past, (except the tattoos and piercing) and I still drink (but no longer to excess) They can now and in the future cost you a job; even at a future "young person" company. It is one thing to hire some of these people in the IT industry that most
Sometimes they will just be needed to meet with clients. Even as a developer, I have needed to do this... One ex-employer specifically told me (after I was hired) that after technical interviews I was essentially hired, and the face to face interview was only to prove that I "clean cut." If I had tats, noticeable piercing, or even body odor, it would have killed the deal. The fact is if you meet with clients you represent the company, and they want a professional image.
Remember, the professional image is more than skin deep. If a client or customer loses your business card and/or contact information, they may google your name to try to find it. (or may do this just because they can...) If they do not like what they see, they will contact the business owner, and you will be forced to work on a different account, or if there is not enough work, you will be let go. You are only employed to bring value to a company. If you can do this or if others do it much better, do not expect to be employed very long.
Read my reply I linked above? Good.
Now... think about a society where tattoos and piercings are ubiquitous, say... as being black or female.
Then, replace instances of tattoos or piercings being mentioned in your quote with nouns "black" or "woman" or "gay" or "handicapped".
Yeah... It's that kind of a thing.
On a side note, I have neither nor do I find them appealing (still talking about tattoos and piercings)... but looking around, both are considered perfectly normal and akin to jewelery today.
Not something reserved only for sailors and savages anymore.
If their clients are not as open-minded
Clients are as open minded as the society they come from is. Again... not today.
Generation or two down the road. Maybe sooner. Who knows.
Like I said... Today tattoos are like... pierced ears 20-30 years back. Short skirts on girls and long hair on guys before that.
Or oral sex today.
You missed my point there.
I am very well aware that we had "Are you now, or have you ever been..." issues in the past and that we still do.
What I was talking about though, is a future society.
One that has had generations of children grow up, have children of their own, who then have children themselves - with each generation growing up with the rules and values of "your past until adulthood doesn't count".
Sorta kinda like the thing we are witnessing today with gay issues and what happened back in the day with race or gender.
Think back to the day when you could get in trouble for being black - and compare that to potential trouble a teenager making a fool of him/her-self today may get into in the future.
Then run from there.
Teenagers growing up getting in trouble or knowing someone who did, seeing something like that as unjust prosecution, raising their kids with those beliefs, campaigning against that, voting against that...
Same for shoplifting as a teenager.
Who says it can't be treated the same way as a broken window? Have the kids work off the damage done and leave it at that.
Kids of today will simply grow up to hold the attitude that literally everyone has made mistakes in their past, especially so while young, and most things a person did won't be held against them.
Everyone already considers mistakes done as a toddler irrelevant, and most do so for mistakes done as a preteen as well.
This will just push the age limit for acceptability of "sins of youth" further.
At the same time, it will shine some light on what we as a society are willing to forgive and forget on account of "being young and crazy".
My guess... Drinking, drugs, questionable fashion choices in the form of tattoos and piercings... maybe even some small crimes like shoplifting.
On the other hand, serious crimes probably won't be so easily forgiven.
But the most fun bit to watch will be what happens to the cases where one's old beliefs, ideas and words are brought back years later.
Will it be OK for a young boy/man to join a radical group based on some rather violent ideas he, as an angry teenager, believes to be true, and later realizing how nonsensical it all was to just move on - or will he have no other choice but to stick with that crowd his entire life as it's the only group that will accept him?
But more importantly, not all ants are cannibals. Cockroaches generally are.
Because of that, borax has different effects on non-cannibalistic ants than on cannibalistic ants or cockroaches.
See, borax does not kill ants or cockroaches instantly.
Instead, they munch on it happily and later their chitinous carapace starts to break apart because of the effect of boric acid on the chitin.
Then, when they die back in the nest, literally crushed by other roaches, their cannibalistic comrades eat them and the boric acid in the chitin starts its work on them.
BUT, while it takes a tad longer for cockroaches to die from cracks in their carapaces, so they die inside the nest and become food, ants will die much sooner and outside the nest, never becoming food.
AND they will still have whiff of both "Danger! Death!" pheromones AND borax on them when their comrades find them.
Your ants didn't evolve - you trained them to fear the smell of borax.
What you need to do is try using less borax.
In CNN's case, that was raising the standards, at least where things like accuracy are concerned.
I'm not sure THAT was the outcome.
Beyond subsection 1. Namely, subsection 3.
Here it is again, for your convenience:
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
I.e. Subsection 1(b) does not matter.
ANY threat or action with guns or explosives against anything is automagically terrorism as long as they can claim that you were doing it for reasons under 1(c).
It is a very, very, VERY broad definition.
Basically, you could get charged with a terrorist threat for saying things like "I should shot you for doing X" or even "I'm going to shoot that phone if it rings again!" - threat of disrupting an electronic system, automagic terrorism.
All they need from you is to answer one simple question. "Why?"
BOOM! Instant ideology!
Answering why, means that you have reasons, which means you reasoned "why" before doing it, which means you created specific rules and reasons to support your "why" - which means that you have an ideology.
Which covers 1(c), which makes you a terrorist. Ta-DAH!
As for your argument for b and c not being satisfied, I already explained how police and their families ARE "a section of the public".
And as for the vendetta - you can't have a vendetta without an ideology to base it on. Even if it is something as nonsensical as "I hate people wearing blue."
It is a premeditated, prolonged and continuous act of revenge.
Again, things like that need specific reasoning and a set of rules WHY they need to continue - i.e. an ideology.
It does not need to be logical or reasonable reasoning. Most vendettas aren't reasonable anyway.