By this fuckwitted logic NO solution to any problem should EVER be used because in some cases ANY counter measure WILL be breached by SOMETHING.
So for example, we should make no effort to keep our water clean because occasionally some bacteria will get into it. We should make no effort to armor ourselves in war because after all occasionally armor fails. We should make no effort to provide power backups because after all sometimes power backups fail.
Etc.
You fail at logic.
While an air gapped system is not entirely foolproof and it is possible for something to get through if other elements of the security are poor, the reality is that the security is dramatically enhanced by having an air gapped system. What is more, such systems while not immune to ALL attacks are immune to most of them.
An air gapped system that ALSO maintains otherwise reasonable security has not been breached yet that we know of.
What is more, saying that because I am proposing the system be air gapped and the iranians had an air gapped system that both systems are the same is at best a strawman argument on your part.
I don't know why you're determined to make a horse's ass out of yourself by making these comments but regardless you've succeeded spectacularly. Well done.
Kill yourself.
really... were anything you said to have any value then we might as well just put screen doors on all our submarines because after all sometimes submarines leak. You're too stupid to be worthy of an opinion.
Worked great until they took an infected thumb drive and plugged it into an airgapped network without checking it.
If you can't figure out how to prevent things like that then you're not competent to run security on a real network.
Everyone on this site will say "but what about this what about this what about this"... and they don't understand that there is a counter measure for every thing and if you do it all... then getting at you basically won't happen.
Look at the networks that are breached and you tend to find rampant incompetence. Find a network that was broken that on review was not found to be run by idiots?
Literally have a guy on site with a telephone... or with email and other stuff... fine... and if you want him to change the way the reactor is working... fucking pick up the phone and call him. Done.
Why are things that were easily managed decades ago suddenly becoming complicated? Airgap nuclear facilities.
If you absolutely MUST connect them over the internet then at the very least use a VPN to effectively digitally airgap it. Not as good... but no one without access to the VPN should be able to access the reactor's systems.
Yes yes, there are ways to break a VPN... but then there are ways to secure a VPN against those ways.
I expect my car to go where I drive it. Primary expectation.
Beyond that, I'd like things that make that experience easier and more pleasurable. Climate control, some sort of audio entertainment capability, GPS is nice, and while we're at it... heated seats.
And for the record, totally happy with the radio/GPS etc functionality being provided by my smartphone which can be bluetooth slaved into the car.
Beyond that... I really don't want them to do anything to the car.
I don't like self driving cars because I know how computers work and I know they make mistakes and are frequently stupid... and that could get awkward when the system plows into a wendy's because it's SURE that that is the way to the grocery store.
I also don't really have a problem with driving long distances. Does not phase me. I throw on something to listen to and I'm gravy.
You said you'd change the laws to end the Fetish of money.
I asked what laws.
You said you'd pass anti trust laws... be specific on what you'd like to stop or shut down or what your law would preclude that exists right now. And please connect that to a "Fetish of money" argument.
You also said you'd create an organization like the FEC to regulate the markets. Clearly there is something wrong with the existing FEC... and i wouldn't disagree... but I would like to hear what you think the problem is... From my own perspective the issue is mostly one of corruption. People that work in the FEC should be barred from working in any industry or business regulated by the FEC for X years after retiring. There is something of a revolving door between the two groups. Its sort of like park rangers and hunters exchanging members back and forth. It creates conflicts of interest that are unacceptable. Correcting this does not require a remaking of the FEC. it merely requires some rules change.
Apparently according to you, this is all that needs to change to end the "fetish of money" which is of course nonsense.
There is ANOTHER set of laws you have conveniently not mentioned that you'd need to put into practice to stop that. And as soon as you say what they are and explain it, my initial thesis will be self evident.
But if you want to try and pretend that some anti trust law and a reform to the FEC would do it... try. Its an insult to any intelligent mind but the fact that you haven't realized you were made almost immediately means this is to be expected.
Okay... so your proscribed changes to end the fetish of money would be:
Anti Trust laws: Define what you would do here. The trusts in the first place all came to be through government monopolies. Today, we arguably don't have many of these...possibly the ISPs... again, government backed. So the Trusts are just crony capitalism.
Create an organization like the FCC... what? It clearly exists.
Your sudden vagueness seems like an attractive defense to you because after all if you're really really vague then no one can call you on your bullshit... you can't be wrong when you're incoherent after all. However, the price of that is that you actually have no argument and no point when you're this vague. Your position boils down to "You know man, like people, should... I don't know... huh ha." Not a strong argument.
So... you have concluded that the only way to win is to not play?
Very well... you see the checkmate. I'll take the victory.
And before you again make another pathetic attempt to claim you've fully explained your position. I asked a very specific question up there.
What law would you change? You can play this out if you want. If you define your position, then I can easily justify my initial ire.
if you don't define your position then you'll effectively be admitting that you know where this goes and will be attempting a squidish ink cloud followed by fleeing.
You choose. Stand and lose or run away tail between your legs. I am quite certain you're just going to make more sad attempts to evade the inevitable... that's fine. Its sad but meaningless.
I read what you wrote. You didn't read what I wrote.
As to money as a fetish, it has value for social status which is a core element of human society.
What is more the money is also exchangeable for resources, power, influence... and thus seeking it is more than merely seeking money for money's sake unless people never do anything with it.
As to me arguing with someone else... you parroted arguments that precede you. Thus rather than arguing with your paraphrasing of someone else's words... I addressed THEIR argument which you are using instead. I consider that to be expedient.
Come up with your own argument and I'll address your position. Parrot someone else's and I'll just address their argument instead. That's entirely reasonable and fair.
As to a 1000 to 1 difference being irrational... says who? That's like saying the price difference between a cheap compact and a hand made sports car is irrational.
Market forces.
Generally no one pays more than they must to get what they want. If they pay 1000 times more then that tends to mean that there weren't any other options if they wanted "that".
As to why the price difference is so intense... I believe you're talking about CEOs and not managers. Managers do not get 1000 times more... CEOs do. And a great deal of that pay comes in the form of stock options which are incentives for CEOs to juice stock prices which are ultimately what the shareholders want.
As to the notion of having more income being irrational... I don't know what you're talking about. Money is useful because you can buy things with it. If you have more then you can buy more stuff or better stuff or security or go into business for yourself or help people or all sorts of other things. Saying that seeking it is irrational is naive.
I frankly don't think you understand the subject very well at this point... and that seems baffling to me because this is pretty fundamental.
If you're against the notion of people working hard and building things and would prefer an easy hunter gatherer life where you just work hard enough to live... so be it. Go off into the wilderness and do that. No one is stopping you. However, that is basically going to damn you to a primitive poor life style forever. Here you might presume to be upset with me... this is not something you're entitled to when someone is just telling you the facts. That's the reality. Either accept it or don't... I can't really work up an ability to care if you're going to be unreasonable.
As to money collecting nerds being more valued... don't value them. No one forces you to or not. But if you want their money then you need to respect them the same way you would the stamp collecting nerd if you wanted his stamps.
When you say "respect" it sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting you should just be able to take his money away if you want it. Which would merely make you someone advocating theft. I'm fine with that... so long as you appreciate that lethal retaliation is acceptable in most places when someone tries to rob you.
Possibly this is the best resolution for your problem... you want to live like a primitive barbarian with no property rights? Okay... go rob someone, get your face blown off, and the Sun will rise on a world with one less fuckwit.
That's nothing new. Money has been that way for... ever. Go back 10,000 years and money was that way.
As to money being bad because of inequality... the point of money is not to have equality but rather to represent the resources a given person or party is owed. Citing inequality suggests that there is any ceiling on what someone can own which is not an inherent economic concept.
A manager that makes 1000 times as much as employees is possible if the relative scarcity of skills is 1000 to 1. If the manager brings something to the table that is special.
Take something like a sports star or a writer or whatever... that kind of talent isn't even 1000 to 1. If I found 1000 people and asked them to do the thing probably not even 1 of them would be able to do it as well as the star. A manager in your example generally is expressing a talent which has a scarcity of about 1000 to 1. That is, if you grabbed a thousand people... probably one of them could do the job that well.
The above is a gross simplification... there are various other elements in play that will cause a valuation to go up or down indifferent to the scarcity of that skill. However, that is a good introduction as to why a manger would be paid so much more.
It is also important to keep in mind what we're really talking about here. Your complaint is something about inequality and labor markets. That isn't an issue with money itself.
People keep thinking they can outsmart reality with mathematical masturbation. The only one that gets fooled by that sort of thing is ourselves. Reality is never fooled because it doesn't calculate things in terms of our philosophies and theories and spreadsheets... it rather calculates things in terms of "is" and "is not". You can't trick that.
Print all the money you want. Its just zeros in a computer at this point. When push comes to shove... the question will be "how much of X do you have NOW". The numbers in our model rarely describe that. They talk about how much we "should" have or how much we "might" have or how much we "will" have... assuming everything goes one way or another.
If our models were so f'ing perfect we wouldn't have these collapses. We wouldn't go from bull to bear and then back to bull and then back to bear.
The truth of the economy lies somewhere between bull and bear. It is the empirical reality. Denial in that case is just self delusion. Accept that and grow wiser.
You can pretend Keynes is the end all be all... but were that the case more of his theories would not be a shit show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is even more ironic that the people pushing for the most disarming of the population in general either tend to have concealed carry licenses or squads of armed and trained killers protecting them.
The argument in full context is not that guns are bad but that PEASANTS shouldn't be allowed to have them.
And on that point, I actually agree. Peasants shouldn't be armed. They're too stupid to be trusted with any power of any kind what so ever.
I would argue about who is and is not a peasant. A good way to tell is to see if a given person wants to be independent, take care of their own problems, and values their own liberty etc over comfort... anyone like that... is a peasant. And I'm very happy to give them as much security as they want and lack of responsibilities. Cradle to grave welfare... no guns... and the nobility will take care of them. They however give up any right to vote on anything, must obey any rule their betters impose without question, and basically just go through the rest of their lives doing what they're told.
Quiet a few peasants will get upset when they are told they can't eat their cake and have it too... but this is a typical peasant complaint and is to be ignored. Anyone with more than two brain cells knows that isn't possible and that isn't how things work. Peasants don't understand these things because they're ignorant semi animals. And that's merely the nature of things.
Some might be sitting here after that statement and be saying "but I don't approve of people being treated that way". And I'd agree only you can't stop it from happening. Some people are basically hardwired to be ruled. And they're going to be ruled by someone... and when that someone rules them they're going to use their waves of cannon fodder to throw you into the same cattle car. I'd personally prefer to not join those morons. They were told. My responsibility is discharged as of that. Beyond that, my objective is not to meet the same fate. And that means getting out of the way of the inevitable.
The equilibrium state of humanity at large is tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Its where it always goes because too many people are programmed to seek the warm embrace of a Dear Leader. If the dear leaders want their birthrights of hordes of peasants to give them the all the time blowjobs... I'm not going to stop them. I do not care. If that's where things are going then I'm going to side step the whole mess or worst case find some place in that order that involves me getting shat on as little as possible. We do what we can.
Between smartphones, tablets, and laptops... why would I put LESS portable computer in a car with a distinct data plan etc?
What I'd prefer is to have the auto people work on the bluetooth integration a bit more so that we can just screen cast our mobile phones to a car screen and integriate features... touch commands etc.
The car doesn't really have all this wizbang app bullshit in it. Its just slaving its interface to the phone.
And before someone says something like "what if the car gets hacked by malware from your phone"... any auto system that integrates that with control systems of the car is badly designed. The two systems should at most share a common power source... I see no reason for that system to interface in any meaningful way with the car's actual control computers.
Here again someone will say something like "what about opening my car with by blue tooth or pressing a button on my phone and getting the lights to turn on in my car"... I don't consider those to be useful features and certainly not when the risks are considered. That said, if you wanted to do that, the way you'd do it is allow the car to accept specific commands under specific circomstances... and nothing else. That is, if you want the doors to unlock if a command is sent from a paired bluetooth device or something... then so be it. That doesn't mean you get access to the ABS system or something.
As to MS's continuing mission to make itself relevant in mobile... the answer remains... allow native windows apps to run on your phones. Here someone is going to say "that's impossible"... but we've seen people run emulated windows on android and then boot up MS programs... and that was fucking years and years ago. So its technically possible. Here someone will say "but who cares if you have access to zillions of programs including hoards of proprietary programs which companies produced for internal usage and have no mobile analogs for..."... which is a dumb point that self destructs pretty much instantly.
There are a lot of ticky tacky reasons for not liking this... stuff about the interface or whatever... it doesn't matter. The power of having full access to those programs on a phone would be a paradigm shift. And if MS further leveraged that by making the screen casting and touch drivers slicker than snot... it would change everything.
First, it shouldn't matter to you what kind of sincerity is offered in "my luck" since it won't matter to you if you're doing everything yourself anyway.
That said, you actually know nothing about my intentions or real feelings about this and your presumption that you do is at best laughable. I am very happy to offer you the best of luck... truly. It would be amazing if your retarded idea actually worked. And if it did all the things you think it would do... that would be great. Really. But it won't because it is stupid... and sadly so are you.
People like you are sadly worth very little more than the small sadistic joy I get out of rubbing your stupid faces in your own messes... and contrary to your doubtless comical next attempt to psychoanalyze me... that sadistic joy is very very small./fin
You don't want my money? Okay... so... your project is 100 percent dead as a fucking door nail then. Because your ONLY shot at getting anywhere with this was stealing the money from other people through some boondoggle government project.
Absent getting the politicians to siphon tax money to throw at this crap... its dead.
So there you go. All is right with the universe. Your dumb idea is so dumb it won't matter. Hurray. *laughs*
Invest your own money and I wish you the best of luck.
If you want MY money or the money of someone else with any functioning brain matter... then you're going to have to make an intelligent and convincing argument... This is basically impossible because the investment is terrible.
Anything beyond you spending your own money or you convincing people to invest THEIR money into this is just you demanding other people give you THEIR money without giving them any choice in the matter. Which is basically theft by one degree or another.
We're done here. You have a dumb idea. It will not get funded. You know it. I know it. Everything after that point is just you whining about other people not funding your failure.
As to your salt... I don't need to be angry or upset to call someone a retard anymore than I need to be mad to point at a flower and call it a flower.
Anywho... you're beyond boring now... you thus have literally no value to me now. No knowledge, no insight, no sense of humor, no creative spark... utterly devoid of value.
Typical of ACs... but I give you twits a chance now and again.
Slashdot Mirror
By this fuckwitted logic NO solution to any problem should EVER be used because in some cases ANY counter measure WILL be breached by SOMETHING.
So for example, we should make no effort to keep our water clean because occasionally some bacteria will get into it. We should make no effort to armor ourselves in war because after all occasionally armor fails. We should make no effort to provide power backups because after all sometimes power backups fail.
Etc.
You fail at logic.
While an air gapped system is not entirely foolproof and it is possible for something to get through if other elements of the security are poor, the reality is that the security is dramatically enhanced by having an air gapped system. What is more, such systems while not immune to ALL attacks are immune to most of them.
An air gapped system that ALSO maintains otherwise reasonable security has not been breached yet that we know of.
What is more, saying that because I am proposing the system be air gapped and the iranians had an air gapped system that both systems are the same is at best a strawman argument on your part.
I don't know why you're determined to make a horse's ass out of yourself by making these comments but regardless you've succeeded spectacularly. Well done.
Kill yourself.
really... were anything you said to have any value then we might as well just put screen doors on all our submarines because after all sometimes submarines leak. You're too stupid to be worthy of an opinion.
Because I know for a fact that some of these systems are being probed remotely which is impossible unless the sites are not air gapped.
You're in error and I am not especially interested in continuing this line of discussion with you.
Good day, sir.
Worked great until they took an infected thumb drive and plugged it into an airgapped network without checking it.
If you can't figure out how to prevent things like that then you're not competent to run security on a real network.
Everyone on this site will say "but what about this what about this what about this"... and they don't understand that there is a counter measure for every thing and if you do it all... then getting at you basically won't happen.
Look at the networks that are breached and you tend to find rampant incompetence. Find a network that was broken that on review was not found to be run by idiots?
You will fail.
Literally have a guy on site with a telephone... or with email and other stuff... fine... and if you want him to change the way the reactor is working... fucking pick up the phone and call him. Done.
Why are things that were easily managed decades ago suddenly becoming complicated? Airgap nuclear facilities.
If you absolutely MUST connect them over the internet then at the very least use a VPN to effectively digitally airgap it. Not as good... but no one without access to the VPN should be able to access the reactor's systems.
Yes yes, there are ways to break a VPN... but then there are ways to secure a VPN against those ways.
I expect my car to go where I drive it. Primary expectation.
Beyond that, I'd like things that make that experience easier and more pleasurable. Climate control, some sort of audio entertainment capability, GPS is nice, and while we're at it... heated seats.
And for the record, totally happy with the radio/GPS etc functionality being provided by my smartphone which can be bluetooth slaved into the car.
Beyond that... I really don't want them to do anything to the car.
I don't like self driving cars because I know how computers work and I know they make mistakes and are frequently stupid... and that could get awkward when the system plows into a wendy's because it's SURE that that is the way to the grocery store.
I also don't really have a problem with driving long distances. Does not phase me. I throw on something to listen to and I'm gravy.
You said you'd change the laws to end the Fetish of money.
I asked what laws.
You said you'd pass anti trust laws... be specific on what you'd like to stop or shut down or what your law would preclude that exists right now. And please connect that to a "Fetish of money" argument.
You also said you'd create an organization like the FEC to regulate the markets. Clearly there is something wrong with the existing FEC... and i wouldn't disagree... but I would like to hear what you think the problem is... From my own perspective the issue is mostly one of corruption. People that work in the FEC should be barred from working in any industry or business regulated by the FEC for X years after retiring. There is something of a revolving door between the two groups. Its sort of like park rangers and hunters exchanging members back and forth. It creates conflicts of interest that are unacceptable. Correcting this does not require a remaking of the FEC. it merely requires some rules change.
Apparently according to you, this is all that needs to change to end the "fetish of money" which is of course nonsense.
There is ANOTHER set of laws you have conveniently not mentioned that you'd need to put into practice to stop that. And as soon as you say what they are and explain it, my initial thesis will be self evident.
But if you want to try and pretend that some anti trust law and a reform to the FEC would do it... try. Its an insult to any intelligent mind but the fact that you haven't realized you were made almost immediately means this is to be expected.
So you're sticking with the "I'll be so vague that no one can validate my argument" tactic. Which is exactly what I predicted.
Very well... you have failed to make an argument so I can't rip it apart... but the price is that you didn't make an argument so you have no point.
If and when you have anything what so ever to contribute on the issue... I'll be listening. Until then... peace be with you, scrub.
How post modern of you... so everything is subjective eh? *pokes you in the eye* Did I poke you in the eye or was that just a shared delusion?
Solipsism is countered by reality rather easily.
Okay... so your proscribed changes to end the fetish of money would be:
Anti Trust laws: Define what you would do here. The trusts in the first place all came to be through government monopolies. Today, we arguably don't have many of these...possibly the ISPs... again, government backed. So the Trusts are just crony capitalism.
Create an organization like the FCC... what? It clearly exists.
Your sudden vagueness seems like an attractive defense to you because after all if you're really really vague then no one can call you on your bullshit... you can't be wrong when you're incoherent after all. However, the price of that is that you actually have no argument and no point when you're this vague. Your position boils down to "You know man, like people, should... I don't know... huh ha." Not a strong argument.
So... you have concluded that the only way to win is to not play?
Very well... you see the checkmate. I'll take the victory.
And before you again make another pathetic attempt to claim you've fully explained your position. I asked a very specific question up there.
What law would you change? You can play this out if you want. If you define your position, then I can easily justify my initial ire.
if you don't define your position then you'll effectively be admitting that you know where this goes and will be attempting a squidish ink cloud followed by fleeing.
You choose. Stand and lose or run away tail between your legs. I am quite certain you're just going to make more sad attempts to evade the inevitable... that's fine. Its sad but meaningless.
Check mate in four moves.
Okay, lets play this out.
Which laws do you want to change to correct the market imbalance?
As to property being a fiction of the state and thus mutable by any subsequent ruling of the state... I'll just note you made that argument.
Respond... you'll disembowel yourself on your own words if you carry the point forward... and I'll have verified my initial impression.
Dare you to prove me wrong... advance your position... I want to hear the flesh rip.
I read what you wrote. You didn't read what I wrote.
As to money as a fetish, it has value for social status which is a core element of human society.
What is more the money is also exchangeable for resources, power, influence... and thus seeking it is more than merely seeking money for money's sake unless people never do anything with it.
As to me arguing with someone else... you parroted arguments that precede you. Thus rather than arguing with your paraphrasing of someone else's words... I addressed THEIR argument which you are using instead. I consider that to be expedient.
Come up with your own argument and I'll address your position. Parrot someone else's and I'll just address their argument instead. That's entirely reasonable and fair.
As to a 1000 to 1 difference being irrational... says who? That's like saying the price difference between a cheap compact and a hand made sports car is irrational.
Market forces.
Generally no one pays more than they must to get what they want. If they pay 1000 times more then that tends to mean that there weren't any other options if they wanted "that".
As to why the price difference is so intense... I believe you're talking about CEOs and not managers. Managers do not get 1000 times more... CEOs do. And a great deal of that pay comes in the form of stock options which are incentives for CEOs to juice stock prices which are ultimately what the shareholders want.
As to the notion of having more income being irrational... I don't know what you're talking about. Money is useful because you can buy things with it. If you have more then you can buy more stuff or better stuff or security or go into business for yourself or help people or all sorts of other things. Saying that seeking it is irrational is naive.
I frankly don't think you understand the subject very well at this point... and that seems baffling to me because this is pretty fundamental.
If you're against the notion of people working hard and building things and would prefer an easy hunter gatherer life where you just work hard enough to live... so be it. Go off into the wilderness and do that. No one is stopping you. However, that is basically going to damn you to a primitive poor life style forever. Here you might presume to be upset with me... this is not something you're entitled to when someone is just telling you the facts. That's the reality. Either accept it or don't... I can't really work up an ability to care if you're going to be unreasonable.
As to money collecting nerds being more valued... don't value them. No one forces you to or not. But if you want their money then you need to respect them the same way you would the stamp collecting nerd if you wanted his stamps.
When you say "respect" it sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting you should just be able to take his money away if you want it. Which would merely make you someone advocating theft. I'm fine with that... so long as you appreciate that lethal retaliation is acceptable in most places when someone tries to rob you.
Possibly this is the best resolution for your problem... you want to live like a primitive barbarian with no property rights? Okay... go rob someone, get your face blown off, and the Sun will rise on a world with one less fuckwit.
That's nothing new. Money has been that way for... ever. Go back 10,000 years and money was that way.
As to money being bad because of inequality... the point of money is not to have equality but rather to represent the resources a given person or party is owed. Citing inequality suggests that there is any ceiling on what someone can own which is not an inherent economic concept.
A manager that makes 1000 times as much as employees is possible if the relative scarcity of skills is 1000 to 1. If the manager brings something to the table that is special.
Take something like a sports star or a writer or whatever... that kind of talent isn't even 1000 to 1. If I found 1000 people and asked them to do the thing probably not even 1 of them would be able to do it as well as the star. A manager in your example generally is expressing a talent which has a scarcity of about 1000 to 1. That is, if you grabbed a thousand people... probably one of them could do the job that well.
The above is a gross simplification... there are various other elements in play that will cause a valuation to go up or down indifferent to the scarcity of that skill. However, that is a good introduction as to why a manger would be paid so much more.
It is also important to keep in mind what we're really talking about here. Your complaint is something about inequality and labor markets. That isn't an issue with money itself.
People keep thinking they can outsmart reality with mathematical masturbation. The only one that gets fooled by that sort of thing is ourselves. Reality is never fooled because it doesn't calculate things in terms of our philosophies and theories and spreadsheets... it rather calculates things in terms of "is" and "is not". You can't trick that.
Print all the money you want. Its just zeros in a computer at this point. When push comes to shove... the question will be "how much of X do you have NOW". The numbers in our model rarely describe that. They talk about how much we "should" have or how much we "might" have or how much we "will" have... assuming everything goes one way or another.
If our models were so f'ing perfect we wouldn't have these collapses. We wouldn't go from bull to bear and then back to bull and then back to bear.
The truth of the economy lies somewhere between bull and bear. It is the empirical reality. Denial in that case is just self delusion. Accept that and grow wiser.
You can pretend Keynes is the end all be all... but were that the case more of his theories would not be a shit show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is even more ironic that the people pushing for the most disarming of the population in general either tend to have concealed carry licenses or squads of armed and trained killers protecting them.
The argument in full context is not that guns are bad but that PEASANTS shouldn't be allowed to have them.
And on that point, I actually agree. Peasants shouldn't be armed. They're too stupid to be trusted with any power of any kind what so ever.
I would argue about who is and is not a peasant. A good way to tell is to see if a given person wants to be independent, take care of their own problems, and values their own liberty etc over comfort... anyone like that... is a peasant. And I'm very happy to give them as much security as they want and lack of responsibilities. Cradle to grave welfare... no guns... and the nobility will take care of them. They however give up any right to vote on anything, must obey any rule their betters impose without question, and basically just go through the rest of their lives doing what they're told.
Quiet a few peasants will get upset when they are told they can't eat their cake and have it too... but this is a typical peasant complaint and is to be ignored. Anyone with more than two brain cells knows that isn't possible and that isn't how things work. Peasants don't understand these things because they're ignorant semi animals. And that's merely the nature of things.
Some might be sitting here after that statement and be saying "but I don't approve of people being treated that way". And I'd agree only you can't stop it from happening. Some people are basically hardwired to be ruled. And they're going to be ruled by someone... and when that someone rules them they're going to use their waves of cannon fodder to throw you into the same cattle car. I'd personally prefer to not join those morons. They were told. My responsibility is discharged as of that. Beyond that, my objective is not to meet the same fate. And that means getting out of the way of the inevitable.
The equilibrium state of humanity at large is tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Its where it always goes because too many people are programmed to seek the warm embrace of a Dear Leader. If the dear leaders want their birthrights of hordes of peasants to give them the all the time blowjobs... I'm not going to stop them. I do not care. If that's where things are going then I'm going to side step the whole mess or worst case find some place in that order that involves me getting shat on as little as possible. We do what we can.
If that argument had any validity then people with guns wouldn't rule the world.
They do... also the statistics on gun deaths are much like the statistics on cars. Are people with cars taking themselves out of the gene pool?
But you know what... I'm very happy to leave that be and let reality prove one of us right and one of us wrong.
We'll pick this discussion up on 1000 years and go over the data then... till then. :D
Between smartphones, tablets, and laptops... why would I put LESS portable computer in a car with a distinct data plan etc?
What I'd prefer is to have the auto people work on the bluetooth integration a bit more so that we can just screen cast our mobile phones to a car screen and integriate features... touch commands etc.
The car doesn't really have all this wizbang app bullshit in it. Its just slaving its interface to the phone.
And before someone says something like "what if the car gets hacked by malware from your phone"... any auto system that integrates that with control systems of the car is badly designed. The two systems should at most share a common power source... I see no reason for that system to interface in any meaningful way with the car's actual control computers.
Here again someone will say something like "what about opening my car with by blue tooth or pressing a button on my phone and getting the lights to turn on in my car"... I don't consider those to be useful features and certainly not when the risks are considered. That said, if you wanted to do that, the way you'd do it is allow the car to accept specific commands under specific circomstances... and nothing else. That is, if you want the doors to unlock if a command is sent from a paired bluetooth device or something... then so be it. That doesn't mean you get access to the ABS system or something.
As to MS's continuing mission to make itself relevant in mobile... the answer remains... allow native windows apps to run on your phones. Here someone is going to say "that's impossible"... but we've seen people run emulated windows on android and then boot up MS programs... and that was fucking years and years ago. So its technically possible. Here someone will say "but who cares if you have access to zillions of programs including hoards of proprietary programs which companies produced for internal usage and have no mobile analogs for..."... which is a dumb point that self destructs pretty much instantly.
There are a lot of ticky tacky reasons for not liking this... stuff about the interface or whatever... it doesn't matter. The power of having full access to those programs on a phone would be a paradigm shift. And if MS further leveraged that by making the screen casting and touch drivers slicker than snot... it would change everything.
But it probably won't happen... so whatever.
First, it shouldn't matter to you what kind of sincerity is offered in "my luck" since it won't matter to you if you're doing everything yourself anyway.
That said, you actually know nothing about my intentions or real feelings about this and your presumption that you do is at best laughable. I am very happy to offer you the best of luck... truly. It would be amazing if your retarded idea actually worked. And if it did all the things you think it would do... that would be great. Really. But it won't because it is stupid... and sadly so are you.
People like you are sadly worth very little more than the small sadistic joy I get out of rubbing your stupid faces in your own messes... and contrary to your doubtless comical next attempt to psychoanalyze me... that sadistic joy is very very small. /fin
You don't want my money? Okay... so... your project is 100 percent dead as a fucking door nail then. Because your ONLY shot at getting anywhere with this was stealing the money from other people through some boondoggle government project.
Absent getting the politicians to siphon tax money to throw at this crap... its dead.
So there you go. All is right with the universe. Your dumb idea is so dumb it won't matter. Hurray. *laughs*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Its over. Guns are out there. Accept it. The notion of "but if the guns weren't there" is meaningless. They're there. They're not going away.
Come up with a different idea... if you're able... and if not... maybe you're not an "idea person" and should just be quiet.
Invest your own money and I wish you the best of luck.
If you want MY money or the money of someone else with any functioning brain matter... then you're going to have to make an intelligent and convincing argument... This is basically impossible because the investment is terrible.
Anything beyond you spending your own money or you convincing people to invest THEIR money into this is just you demanding other people give you THEIR money without giving them any choice in the matter. Which is basically theft by one degree or another.
We're done here. You have a dumb idea. It will not get funded. You know it. I know it. Everything after that point is just you whining about other people not funding your failure.
Your lack of a response is noted again.
As to your salt... I don't need to be angry or upset to call someone a retard anymore than I need to be mad to point at a flower and call it a flower.
Anywho... you're beyond boring now... you thus have literally no value to me now. No knowledge, no insight, no sense of humor, no creative spark... utterly devoid of value.
Typical of ACs... but I give you twits a chance now and again.
I already addressed it... Still no argument.
As to anger... you're the one responding to me... you're the one that is salty.
So... unless you have anything besides more bluster... I'm going to mark this down as more idiots mad that people noticed they were stupid.
Still nothing but bluster and idiocy... Still waiting for your argument. Just more AC failboatery.