I agree but that's not how it works. The way character assassination works is that first you dig up everything that is ugly about a person, true or not, and make that the central issue. After that you can claim anything you want, that Assange is working for the Russians for instance and it's easily believed. And then you can claim the next thing and it ever becomes more easy. You want to know some really nasty folks? The people going after Assange. Somehow that thought occurs to nobody. Assange has been locked up in the Embassy for years, and for what, 8 weeks or something, he's been denied virtually every form of communication. Meanwhile stories are launched that he betrayed the trust of the Ecuadorians. But does anyone feel like these people are real scum who are attacking press freedom and destroying people? Uh no, never thought of that. They must be very concerned with justice. Yes, that's it.
You despise him because you're an induhvidual eh. Apparently the idea is that if Assange is anything less than perfect we can easily betray him and your standards are so very high that everything Assange has contributed melts away when you consider the charges. Here's an article about the UK pressing Sweden to keep up chasing Assange. https://www.theguardian.com/me... I've started following Craig Murray's blog on this. Some kind or rapist that Assange, a real Weinstein! There are degrees of indecency, and if even Sweden had to be pressed to go after Assange I doubt any other country would have. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...
He crosses the CIA and the US government. So they destroy his reputation and they destroy him to show everyone who's boss. They just can't help themselves, it's standard procedure . From the article:
In an extraordinary breach of diplomatic protocol, Assange managed to compromise the communications system within the embassy and had his own satellite internet access, according to documents and a source who wished to remain anonymous. By penetrating the embassy’s firewall, Assange was able to access and intercept the official and personal communications of staff, the source claimed.
In tweets on Tuesday WikiLeaks denied that Assange had compromised the embassy’s network. “That’s an anonymous libel aligned with the current UK-US government onslaught against Mr Assange,” WikiLeaks wrote, adding that its editor-in-chief was not in a position to respond.
. Of course it's a made up claim. That's also people just doing their job. Your job is to be gullible and to despise Assange.
While I'm wating for the first Photon Torpedoes I already know I really need a Photonic Quantum Analog Computing Chip It'll be in a transparent casing in my laptop so everyone can see it.
Please find someone else throwing around large piles of money for similar research so they can be evaluated as an alternative. If you don't want to waste your time, there isn't anyone. Even Google turned to DoD funding.
You were supposed to say "Nice try but no." It's one thing to say the system is fucked up and I'm just adapting to it', and another to start rationalizing that it's actually a good thing.
I know that the DoD has replaced the government in many respects. It gets all the government's money and everyone pragmatically goes to the DoD instead of the government for assistance.
Concerning the damage of modern weapons, at the time of North Korea they flattened the whole country and nobody bothered. Vietnam changed a lot because of television. They could still quietly flatten Cambodia but massacres became more visible and there were quite some american deaths. The place was also fairly democratic at the time, and for a while the US had no major direct wars. Carpet bombing was out. The Iraq war of 1990 was 'liberating'. There was a renewed sense of freedom to go to war: a lot of expensive air power, few American casualties, and very prominent precision bombardment movies, and tight media control. So yes, improvements in weapons did mean less restraint. It made wars easier to sell. Obama could easily sell undeclared drone wars in many countries, which is actually extraordinary.
The point is to reduce the role of the public to extracting their money. Automation is part of this process of insulation. The Afghanistan war has been going on for 17 years, it has cost many times the GNP of Afghanistan and it's not an issue. Still too many soldiers being hurt though, and paradoxically their families voted for Trump. But together with generally reduced level of democracy, more media control, the attraction of automation is to insulate the public completely from the wars. All they feel is 'something odd about the money'. So yes this is on topic.
Interesting thought. I would have said me too, but since I've been told that washing a fleece causes a lot of microplastics to end up in the environment and so does scouring powder I started to think what else I was overlooking. At least I don't have artificial grass.
This sounds entirely like someone working in the arms industry and attempting to justify it for himself. There is nothing benign about making weapons better, more precise, more powerful. It means they get used more, there is less reason for restraint. Why would you ever talk to the opposition anymore then. It's all about power and destroying all the opposition.
And in this case it's power for Trump and psychos like Bolton who are just itching to use all that power. Next they'll be bombing Iran , Syria and North Korea with small nukes and you can claim they are so much more humane than large nukes.
According to this list on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... the incarceration rate of the US is the worst in the world, next to North Korea(which could be better or worse since it's a guess). The nearest other candidates are tiny islands in the pacific. Every school should consider it their duty to keep their kids out of the criminal system.
You assume - you don't understand the suggestion so it must be idiotic - the public transit system does not suck - people drive cars because they have a car fetish - we should design the public transit system so that it does not suck anymore.
A more moderate version would be that cars give people mobility and that is worth a lot. Therefore the threshold for allowing people to drive should be as low as possible and a modest increase in death toll should be allowed. It's always tempting to put the bar as high as possible because it's good for the traffic deaths, but you have to balance it.
A way to shift the balance then is to take in account driving aids: autopilot/lane assist/collision detection etc allow the driver to act more competently, so you could have a category of drivers who are not allowed to drive in a basic car. I imagine some 'moderate epileptics' to be allowed to drive that way.
They didn't forget it. In true Orwellian fashion they must have been misinterpreted because they always were addressing the user, not themselves. And the user knows he should not even think about doing evil because Google will know.
The way we're combining a new McCarthyism with the War on Fake News I'm sure there is already a ministry of truth out there. Wikileaks has joined the War on Fake News btw. Jimmy Wales said so.
It's not 'the US' , it's more the three psychos: US/Israel/Saudi Arabia, threatening to blow up the whole place unless everyone does as they say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Who could object to a modest guiding system which advises you what music to pick. It is no problem if it dismisses a lot of good music as long as it provides a few good suggestions each day. It doesn't hurt anyone. There is a need to balance the quality of the scoring system with its power. I reacted because I perceived an aspiration for a more ambitious scoring system.
I do have complaints about the current system and I don't use it as a filter. I would like to make anonymous posts an exception rather than the rule. When people have an online persona they tend to care about its reputation and that reduces abuse.
In fact the idea of reputation scores on the web is being implemented. It's called the war on fake news and every player with any clout is elbowing in to have the reputation system tilt their way. The result is that the reputation system works for power. For a lot of people that is fine, if they have a comfortable place in the whole thing.
The approach that enforcing a reputation system is good provided we take some measures to minimize mistakes is doomed to fail.
Looking at it another way we can't do without reputation systems, they're always there, but then - we at least need to have multiple systems available where we can plug in to. - most reputation systems are weak so you have to keep the consequences of a low reputation minimal as well.
This may explain why I am very skeptical when I encounter anyone being enthusiastic about reputation scores. I recognize the need for it though. We all have our strategies for that.
When I'm being told I have to give up my rights to enable a fight against a huge danger: the terrorists, and then all kinds of things are done with a side effect to increase the number massively, and then it's not such a problem anymore, then I'm not inclined to have any trust in claims that now Russia is the big boogeyman, and then China.
There is a war in Afghanistan for 16 years now, but I'm told there is nothing to see there.
The timing of this is weird. First we had terrorists which were the worst problem. Now the terrorism problem is maybe 100 times worse but now the Russians are taking over the world. Shouldn't we be giving it a bit more time before raising the Chinese to first enemy? I mean we haven't gotten the message yet 'never mind the russians here is the *real* enemy!'
Slashdot Mirror
I agree but that's not how it works. The way character assassination works is that first you dig up everything that is ugly about a person, true or not, and make that the central issue. After that you can claim anything you want, that Assange is working for the Russians for instance and it's easily believed. And then you can claim the next thing and it ever becomes more easy. You want to know some really nasty folks? The people going after Assange. Somehow that thought occurs to nobody. Assange has been locked up in the Embassy for years, and for what, 8 weeks or something, he's been denied virtually every form of communication. Meanwhile stories are launched that he betrayed the trust of the Ecuadorians. But does anyone feel like these people are real scum who are attacking press freedom and destroying people? Uh no, never thought of that. They must be very concerned with justice. Yes, that's it.
You despise him because you're an induhvidual eh. Apparently the idea is that if Assange is anything less than perfect we can easily betray him and your standards are so very high that everything Assange has contributed melts away when you consider the charges. Here's an article about the UK pressing Sweden to keep up chasing Assange.
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
I've started following Craig Murray's blog on this. Some kind or rapist that Assange, a real Weinstein! There are degrees of indecency, and if even Sweden had to be pressed to go after Assange I doubt any other country would have.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...
He crosses the CIA and the US government. So they destroy his reputation and they destroy him to show everyone who's boss. They just can't help themselves, it's standard procedure . From the article:
.
Of course it's a made up claim. That's also people just doing their job.
Your job is to be gullible and to despise Assange.
While I'm wating for the first Photon Torpedoes I already know I really need a Photonic Quantum Analog Computing Chip It'll be in a transparent casing in my laptop so everyone can see it.
You were supposed to say "Nice try but no."
It's one thing to say the system is fucked up and I'm just adapting to it', and another to start rationalizing that it's actually a good thing.
I know that the DoD has replaced the government in many respects. It gets all the government's money and everyone pragmatically goes to the DoD instead of the government for assistance.
Concerning the damage of modern weapons, at the time of North Korea they flattened the whole country and nobody bothered. Vietnam changed a lot because of television. They could still quietly flatten Cambodia but massacres became more visible and there were quite some american deaths. The place was also fairly democratic at the time, and for a while the US had no major direct wars. Carpet bombing was out. The Iraq war of 1990 was 'liberating'. There was a renewed sense of freedom to go to war: a lot of expensive air power, few American casualties, and very prominent precision bombardment movies, and tight media control. So yes, improvements in weapons did mean less restraint. It made wars easier to sell. Obama could easily sell undeclared drone wars in many countries, which is actually extraordinary.
The point is to reduce the role of the public to extracting their money. Automation is part of this process of insulation. The Afghanistan war has been going on for 17 years, it has cost many times the GNP of Afghanistan and it's not an issue. Still too many soldiers being hurt though, and paradoxically their families voted for Trump. But together with generally reduced level of democracy, more media control, the attraction of automation is to insulate the public completely from the wars. All they feel is 'something odd about the money'. So yes this is on topic.
Interesting thought. I would have said me too, but since I've been told that washing a fleece causes a lot of microplastics to end up in the environment and so does scouring powder I started to think what else I was overlooking. At least I don't have artificial grass.
This sounds entirely like someone working in the arms industry and attempting to justify it for himself.
There is nothing benign about making weapons better, more precise, more powerful. It means they get used more, there is less reason for restraint. Why would you ever talk to the opposition anymore then.
It's all about power and destroying all the opposition.
And in this case it's power for Trump and psychos like Bolton who are just itching to use all that power. Next they'll be bombing Iran , Syria and North Korea with small nukes and you can claim they are so much more humane than large nukes.
According to this list on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... the incarceration rate of the US is the worst in the world, next to North Korea(which could be better or worse since it's a guess). The nearest other candidates are tiny islands in the pacific.
Every school should consider it their duty to keep their kids out of the criminal system.
Better mod this up because a lot of people will be getting this wrong.
You assume
- you don't understand the suggestion so it must be idiotic
- the public transit system does not suck
- people drive cars because they have a car fetish
- we should design the public transit system so that it does not suck anymore.
I agree with the last statement.
I can assure you it's always 'now'. You just think you're travelling in time.
A more moderate version would be that cars give people mobility and that is worth a lot. Therefore the threshold for allowing people to drive should be as low as possible and a modest increase in death toll should be allowed. It's always tempting to put the bar as high as possible because it's good for the traffic deaths, but you have to balance it.
A way to shift the balance then is to take in account driving aids: autopilot/lane assist/collision detection etc allow the driver to act more competently, so you could have a category of drivers who are not allowed to drive in a basic car. I imagine some 'moderate epileptics' to be allowed to drive that way.
They didn't forget it. In true Orwellian fashion they must have been misinterpreted because they always were addressing the user, not themselves. And the user knows he should not even think about doing evil because Google will know.
The way we're combining a new McCarthyism with the War on Fake News I'm sure there is already a ministry of truth out there.
Wikileaks has joined the War on Fake News btw. Jimmy Wales said so.
Remarkable how this is modded down isn't it.
I don't see the link to part 2 in part one so here it is. This is where most of the WH stuff is discussed.
https://www.alternet.org/grayz...
I think for a two sentence summary that's not too bad.
There is a two part article about the white helmets https://www.alternet.org/world...
Al Qaeda likes them a lot. Not my opinion, theirs. The WH been very valuable in the propaganda war.
The topic article of course is entirely about discrediting any information which comes out about the White Helmets.
We've had a lot of this discrediting of dissent by linking it to Russian Trolls and there will be a lot more. It works very well.
Not even for a plethora?
It's not 'the US' , it's more the three psychos: US/Israel/Saudi Arabia, threatening to blow up the whole place unless everyone does as they say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is a good argument. The focus on the width of the space at the end loses sense of what is important for readability.
Also I have to know, which fonts do you prefer?
Who could object to a modest guiding system which advises you what music to pick. It is no problem if it dismisses a lot of good music as long as it provides a few good suggestions each day. It doesn't hurt anyone.
There is a need to balance the quality of the scoring system with its power. I reacted because I perceived an aspiration for a more ambitious scoring system.
I do have complaints about the current system and I don't use it as a filter. I would like to make anonymous posts an exception rather than the rule. When people have an online persona they tend to care about its reputation and that reduces abuse.
In fact the idea of reputation scores on the web is being implemented. It's called the war on fake news and every player with any clout is elbowing in to have the reputation system tilt their way.
The result is that the reputation system works for power. For a lot of people that is fine, if they have a comfortable place in the whole thing.
The approach that enforcing a reputation system is good provided we take some measures to minimize mistakes is doomed to fail.
Looking at it another way we can't do without reputation systems, they're always there, but then
- we at least need to have multiple systems available where we can plug in to.
- most reputation systems are weak so you have to keep the consequences of a low reputation minimal as well.
This may explain why I am very skeptical when I encounter anyone being enthusiastic about reputation scores. I recognize the need for it though. We all have our strategies for that.
When I'm being told I have to give up my rights to enable a fight against a huge danger: the terrorists, and then all kinds of things are done with a side effect to increase the number massively, and then it's not such a problem anymore, then I'm not inclined to have any trust in claims that now Russia is the big boogeyman, and then China.
There is a war in Afghanistan for 16 years now, but I'm told there is nothing to see there.
Well the Chinese have started up the Social Credit System. You'll love it.
The timing of this is weird. First we had terrorists which were the worst problem. Now the terrorism problem is maybe 100 times worse but now the Russians are taking over the world. Shouldn't we be giving it a bit more time before raising the Chinese to first enemy? I mean we haven't gotten the message yet 'never mind the russians here is the *real* enemy!'