Until then, the aperture through which the world and human experience flows through will be constrained by keystrokes, emojis, the limitations of the application used, the limitations of the devices used, and the dwindling creativity of their addicted users.
I have often said, "When the emotional spectrum of our youth is only expressed within the bounds of mad face and smiley face icons, don't be surprised when their experience of life is diminished accordingly."
Even now I notice how incredibly addicted people are to these infernal devices. Just try leaving yours off for a day and see what happens. Someone you know will never forgive you. Someone will think less of you. People might even wonder if you are a drug addict.
All because your electronic tether isn't firmly attached. You loose the bonds for just a little while and the others will turn on you.
Your list of problems have immediately obvious answers. And, the reasons why they are doing things this way is really easy to understand.
Are you incredibly short sighted or just trying to be negative about everything? Are you generally a negative person? Do you always see how easily explained and fixed problems can go wrong instead of right? Do you not use duct tape and super glue to fix things, instead using staples and scotch tape, only to see the shitty repairs you made fall apart literally in front of your face?
Too bad. You could get a warrant for lots of things and come up empty, encryption notwithstanding. People die all the time. Lives are important. You see this only when they are threatened with death. I see it when every moment is being threatened with scrutiny from faceless government systems designed specifically to eliminate the privacy of everyone. You can't live with the idea of people dying, and I can't live with the idea of living a life that is not free. The use of an "independent court system" has led to an overuse of surveillance in every aspect of our lives. You think it's a good thing to beg for more? You would be pitiable if your ideas weren't so damn dangerous to all of us. The way I see it, you are the risk. You support the kind of intrusion into my life that I find completely unacceptable. And it is only with the complicit support of dangerous fools like you that our governments keep ratcheting it up.
TL;DR: If the reaction to terrorism is to hand you own government the power and mandate to create a surveillance state, maybe the terrorists are right.
Agreed. In the first paragraphette I was speaking about citizen to citizen interactions, not citizen to government. The context being a public riot where violence and destruction are directed towards co-citizens and their material property. This is a no-go for me. I can't support this kind of action and will oppose it with whatever tools are at hand.
The second paragraphette was my in-joke support of the moral right and duty you so aptly point out. If you want to riot in the streets I won't support that. However, if you are directing your violence against the established government to redress a multitude of wrongs you may very well have my support, depending on the intentions, methods, message, and goals communicated by your group.
Just remember the order of operations with regard to boxes: Soapbox, mail box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Exhaust each in order before proceeding to the next.
When someone, somewhere, anywhere even, says that I don't need end-to-end encryption I take it as a sure sign that I desperately, immediately need end-to-end encryption on everything.
If they weren't deeply invested in being able to see everything I send to anyone they wouldn't even care about making such an announcement. That they are saying this means they are being frustrated by the idea of private communication. Good. Fuck them.
You want the details of my communication? Fine, start up a conversation with me and whatever I send you is yours to do with as you wish. Or check what I post online under my real name. Any other viewing of my private communications is a violation of my privacy you authoritarian shit bag, and requires a warrant and a damn good reason.
If you are angry while you are protesting you are doing it wrong. If you are protesting to change people's mind, the first rule is to leave your anger at home. Your dedication to your cause is not going to spread to others if you express anger. Those that are as angry as you are already on your side. You need to persuade and to get publicity that ultimately leads to people hearing your message.
Anger in others is difficult to identify with if you aren't already negatively predisposed to the object of their anger. It has the potential to polarize and offends without regard for content, effectively stopping your message being delivered.
Organization, message, and publicity work better than appealing to sensationalism. When you run amok serious people won't take you seriously, at least in an ideological sense. They may take you seriously enough to have the police round you up and charge you with conspiracy, but not serious in the ideological sense of things. You will be dismissed as easily as last night's roadkill observed on the way to work: too messy to get involved with, distasteful in the extreme, and I've got shit to do and no time for this. A large showing, a cogent message, and a pretty face (preferably the subject of an undeserving truncheon blow or two) are infinitely better than angry ranting and smashing shit.
Misbehaving protestors or rioters (pick your phrase) are in many ways helping the position they are protesting against. People on the other side of the protestors will think "See! Those that disagree with us can't even act like rational humans! If they have to resort to violence they can't have a strong position. I could never side with people that act like that. That's un-American!" The thoughts go on and on, and are valid in most cases.
Therefore, if you are in a group of protestors that are "misbehaving" your first objective should be to extricate yourself from that protest. Your second objective should be to take as many of your friends or other protestors with you as quickly as possible. Violence and destruction of property does not persuade. It won't make your case stronger, it won't get you the converts you want, and it won't play well in the public eye. If you want to make a difference you shouldn't be where the violence is. That doesn't solve anything. It just pushes people into a corner, forcing them to decide whether or not they support your position. And, with such an eloquent delivery of the subject matter as smashing windows and breaking cars, who can blame them for looking at the protestors as fools?
Well fixed, too. That is the metric by which I judge the validity of methods, thoughts, and actions. I don't have to agree with you to deem your opinion valid, you just have to express it without resorting to certain inexcusable activities. Namely, violence and falsehood.
The only exception against violence would be a nationally organized civilian revolt by the majority, wherein we depose the entire federal government at once and install new leaders from the proletariat. One would have no choice but to go along with something like that, should such a situation arise for whatever reason. Just saying.
It would be interesting to know facts about cultures that are different than our own. For instance, what if the "traditional houisehold arrangement" of man working outside the house/woman working around the house and marketplace was more efficient or less efficient.
See, if you kept working age women that stayed home in the numbers it would be easy to see trends related to domestic arrangements. Without it the numbers are less relevant to total productivity, not more.
Not a good analogy at all. He wasn't in someone else's house. Nor on their porch, nor their property.
Everything he modified was on his computer. They dropped a bunch of stuff into his browser, he modified it on his end, and they loaded the info from his computer back into theirs and took it as true.
That is not at all similar to breaking and entering. In your analogy he never left his own house.
Exactly right. You have two issues to contend with. First, you could be come ensnared in a prosecution that continues to fling mud without evidence. Two, neither party is directly beholden to Trump, as he is an outsider to the political party's indentured servitude to entrenched interests. Taking his nomination would alienate said individual from both parties and from potential corporate backers in any future campaign.
Easy explanation. This is market testing. Chuck the idea out to the public, watch what is said, use the results to sharpen the point of your thrust, which comes later.
A big headline creates waves. Study the waves and you see the obstacles and advocates to actual implementation of the idea well before it is "make or break" time.
Operating in a vacuum is good for the line itself, not for developing the line.
Yep, dealing with enough of that back home and people might realize how incredibly stupid wars are and how they don't achieve anything except enriching the people that run them.
It's like these conventions are a form of regulation designed to maximize the number of available bodies for future war efforts. Anything that would erode support for war is outlawed.
Noted, and yet we have a system currently where regulators for the government are almost completely staffed by former employees of the businesses they are now regulating. If its good enough for insurance companies, oil companies, textiles, energy production and distribution, wall street, and big pahrma, why not for the average American?
The electorate continually elects officials to the federal government that are immensely more wealthy than the average American.
They don't even have to be corrupt to create policies that are antithetical to the well being of the masses. It only makes sense that they would view life through the lens of who they are. They will make policies based on that experience. There is much they will miss without even the merest hint of malice in them.
I read about a great solution to this. I can't remember where it was exactly, but I seem to remember it being in the northwest states. Oregon or Washington? The gist of the law was that no one could participate in making welfare assistance laws without having been in the system themselves at some point.
An analogous solution would be requiring the House of Representative's economic status match closely the economic status of those they represent, with a total representation that matches the economic distribution of the country.
So do non-transitive dice, yet they exist and eventually do make sense when you learn about them and can consider them as they actually are.
Similar thing here. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, with a very specific definition of friend where that friend is not now your enemy.
Personally, I don't trust either corporation or the government to work in my best interests. One has its own agenda combined with special protections under the law and the other is a greedy, bloodsucking parasite on the country. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is which.
Petrochemical companies write the EPA regulations. Big pharma and insurance companies wrote Obamacare. Senators and congressmen write the regulations on their income, retirement, and health care. And now, internet service providers write the regulations on net neutrality. Great.
All of this is brought to you not by the parties, but by the partisan. You, those people who eat, sleep and drink the words of your "political party" and violently regurgitate them at everyone you meet, are the ones that make all of this happen.
If you elect multi-millionaires to every political office in the federal government you should not be surprised if you are treated like one of their assets or possessions. You are merely another of their resources to be irresponsibly exploited for power, corporate profit, and taxes.
The only recourse against government leaders is dissent. However, in a miraculously fortunate (for our aristocratic leaders) and totally not contrived or engineered in any way sort of circumstance (yeah right!), a side effect of the two party system is that dissent and dissatisfaction against actions of the government are directed only at one of the parties and not the government as a whole.
Haven't you figured it out yet? If you are partisan, you cause shit like this because you won't keep your own party clean. You can't keep your finger out of other people's faces which means you will never deal with the issues in your own party and ultimately in your own mind. As long as you have a scapegoat to blame you will let your government get away with ANYTHING.
The result is that those of us who haven't done the Kool-Aid colonic like you have not only have to listen to you prattle on incandescently (because you get so hot about stuff that is completely inane, haha) but we also have to deal with the immense political problems facing our country which your actions create. Of course you never feel responsible for any of them because its always the other party's fault. In reality, the only reason we have these problems is because partisan people will never do the one thing that would give them incredible power to dictate the course of our country: hold their own party accountable.
Slashdot Mirror
None of those books are censored in the US now. Silly git.
More like the government that secretly created and distributed WannaCry is looking for retribution against the person who stopped its spread.
Vindictive bastards they are. Wouldn't put it past them.
...full fucking telepresence and not before.
Until then, the aperture through which the world and human experience flows through will be constrained by keystrokes, emojis, the limitations of the application used, the limitations of the devices used, and the dwindling creativity of their addicted users.
I have often said, "When the emotional spectrum of our youth is only expressed within the bounds of mad face and smiley face icons, don't be surprised when their experience of life is diminished accordingly."
Even now I notice how incredibly addicted people are to these infernal devices. Just try leaving yours off for a day and see what happens. Someone you know will never forgive you. Someone will think less of you. People might even wonder if you are a drug addict.
All because your electronic tether isn't firmly attached. You loose the bonds for just a little while and the others will turn on you.
Your list of problems have immediately obvious answers. And, the reasons why they are doing things this way is really easy to understand.
Are you incredibly short sighted or just trying to be negative about everything? Are you generally a negative person? Do you always see how easily explained and fixed problems can go wrong instead of right? Do you not use duct tape and super glue to fix things, instead using staples and scotch tape, only to see the shitty repairs you made fall apart literally in front of your face?
Too bad. You could get a warrant for lots of things and come up empty, encryption notwithstanding.
People die all the time. Lives are important. You see this only when they are threatened with death. I see it when every moment is being threatened with scrutiny from faceless government systems designed specifically to eliminate the privacy of everyone. You can't live with the idea of people dying, and I can't live with the idea of living a life that is not free.
The use of an "independent court system" has led to an overuse of surveillance in every aspect of our lives. You think it's a good thing to beg for more? You would be pitiable if your ideas weren't so damn dangerous to all of us.
The way I see it, you are the risk. You support the kind of intrusion into my life that I find completely unacceptable. And it is only with the complicit support of dangerous fools like you that our governments keep ratcheting it up.
TL;DR: If the reaction to terrorism is to hand you own government the power and mandate to create a surveillance state, maybe the terrorists are right.
Agreed. In the first paragraphette I was speaking about citizen to citizen interactions, not citizen to government. The context being a public riot where violence and destruction are directed towards co-citizens and their material property. This is a no-go for me. I can't support this kind of action and will oppose it with whatever tools are at hand.
The second paragraphette was my in-joke support of the moral right and duty you so aptly point out. If you want to riot in the streets I won't support that. However, if you are directing your violence against the established government to redress a multitude of wrongs you may very well have my support, depending on the intentions, methods, message, and goals communicated by your group.
Just remember the order of operations with regard to boxes: Soapbox, mail box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Exhaust each in order before proceeding to the next.
When someone, somewhere, anywhere even, says that I don't need end-to-end encryption I take it as a sure sign that I desperately, immediately need end-to-end encryption on everything.
If they weren't deeply invested in being able to see everything I send to anyone they wouldn't even care about making such an announcement. That they are saying this means they are being frustrated by the idea of private communication. Good. Fuck them.
You want the details of my communication? Fine, start up a conversation with me and whatever I send you is yours to do with as you wish. Or check what I post online under my real name. Any other viewing of my private communications is a violation of my privacy you authoritarian shit bag, and requires a warrant and a damn good reason.
If you are angry while you are protesting you are doing it wrong. If you are protesting to change people's mind, the first rule is to leave your anger at home. Your dedication to your cause is not going to spread to others if you express anger. Those that are as angry as you are already on your side. You need to persuade and to get publicity that ultimately leads to people hearing your message.
Anger in others is difficult to identify with if you aren't already negatively predisposed to the object of their anger. It has the potential to polarize and offends without regard for content, effectively stopping your message being delivered.
Organization, message, and publicity work better than appealing to sensationalism. When you run amok serious people won't take you seriously, at least in an ideological sense. They may take you seriously enough to have the police round you up and charge you with conspiracy, but not serious in the ideological sense of things. You will be dismissed as easily as last night's roadkill observed on the way to work: too messy to get involved with, distasteful in the extreme, and I've got shit to do and no time for this. A large showing, a cogent message, and a pretty face (preferably the subject of an undeserving truncheon blow or two) are infinitely better than angry ranting and smashing shit.
Misbehaving protestors or rioters (pick your phrase) are in many ways helping the position they are protesting against. People on the other side of the protestors will think "See! Those that disagree with us can't even act like rational humans! If they have to resort to violence they can't have a strong position. I could never side with people that act like that. That's un-American!" The thoughts go on and on, and are valid in most cases.
Therefore, if you are in a group of protestors that are "misbehaving" your first objective should be to extricate yourself from that protest. Your second objective should be to take as many of your friends or other protestors with you as quickly as possible. Violence and destruction of property does not persuade. It won't make your case stronger, it won't get you the converts you want, and it won't play well in the public eye. If you want to make a difference you shouldn't be where the violence is. That doesn't solve anything. It just pushes people into a corner, forcing them to decide whether or not they support your position. And, with such an eloquent delivery of the subject matter as smashing windows and breaking cars, who can blame them for looking at the protestors as fools?
Well fixed, too. That is the metric by which I judge the validity of methods, thoughts, and actions. I don't have to agree with you to deem your opinion valid, you just have to express it without resorting to certain inexcusable activities. Namely, violence and falsehood.
The only exception against violence would be a nationally organized civilian revolt by the majority, wherein we depose the entire federal government at once and install new leaders from the proletariat. One would have no choice but to go along with something like that, should such a situation arise for whatever reason. Just saying.
Religious documents do not state that the sun revolves around the earth. Only idiotic humans say that, regardless of their affiliation with religion.
It would be interesting to know facts about cultures that are different than our own. For instance, what if the "traditional houisehold arrangement" of man working outside the house/woman working around the house and marketplace was more efficient or less efficient.
See, if you kept working age women that stayed home in the numbers it would be easy to see trends related to domestic arrangements. Without it the numbers are less relevant to total productivity, not more.
Not a good analogy at all. He wasn't in someone else's house. Nor on their porch, nor their property.
Everything he modified was on his computer. They dropped a bunch of stuff into his browser, he modified it on his end, and they loaded the info from his computer back into theirs and took it as true.
That is not at all similar to breaking and entering. In your analogy he never left his own house.
No, there's still just the two. Though they are owned by the same family...
Exactly right. You have two issues to contend with. First, you could be come ensnared in a prosecution that continues to fling mud without evidence. Two, neither party is directly beholden to Trump, as he is an outsider to the political party's indentured servitude to entrenched interests. Taking his nomination would alienate said individual from both parties and from potential corporate backers in any future campaign.
Easy explanation. This is market testing. Chuck the idea out to the public, watch what is said, use the results to sharpen the point of your thrust, which comes later.
A big headline creates waves. Study the waves and you see the obstacles and advocates to actual implementation of the idea well before it is "make or break" time.
Operating in a vacuum is good for the line itself, not for developing the line.
Yep, dealing with enough of that back home and people might realize how incredibly stupid wars are and how they don't achieve anything except enriching the people that run them.
It's like these conventions are a form of regulation designed to maximize the number of available bodies for future war efforts. Anything that would erode support for war is outlawed.
Noted, and yet we have a system currently where regulators for the government are almost completely staffed by former employees of the businesses they are now regulating. If its good enough for insurance companies, oil companies, textiles, energy production and distribution, wall street, and big pahrma, why not for the average American?
The electorate continually elects officials to the federal government that are immensely more wealthy than the average American.
They don't even have to be corrupt to create policies that are antithetical to the well being of the masses. It only makes sense that they would view life through the lens of who they are. They will make policies based on that experience. There is much they will miss without even the merest hint of malice in them.
I read about a great solution to this. I can't remember where it was exactly, but I seem to remember it being in the northwest states. Oregon or Washington? The gist of the law was that no one could participate in making welfare assistance laws without having been in the system themselves at some point.
An analogous solution would be requiring the House of Representative's economic status match closely the economic status of those they represent, with a total representation that matches the economic distribution of the country.
So do non-transitive dice, yet they exist and eventually do make sense when you learn about them and can consider them as they actually are.
Similar thing here. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, with a very specific definition of friend where that friend is not now your enemy.
Personally, I don't trust either corporation or the government to work in my best interests. One has its own agenda combined with special protections under the law and the other is a greedy, bloodsucking parasite on the country. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is which.
Not if you hate people having guns more than you hate people committing crimes.
Interesting that the only thing that allowed Hogan to get justice was the backing of a billionaire.
Gawker was free to trample on his personal privacy without any fear of repercussions as long as he didn't have someone to bankroll his day in court.
Let's go back to fireside chats! When will you be home? I want to call you on the telephone. Or would a telegram be better?
The president is responsible for controlling his communication. No one else.
Muslims? You mean those people who murder homosexuals, rape victims, and whose religion is designed to kill or convert everyone in the world?
Those aims are directly in opposition to freedom of religion and sexuality.
... and it never stops.
Petrochemical companies write the EPA regulations.
Big pharma and insurance companies wrote Obamacare.
Senators and congressmen write the regulations on their income, retirement, and health care.
And now, internet service providers write the regulations on net neutrality.
Great.
All of this is brought to you not by the parties, but by the partisan. You, those people who eat, sleep and drink the words of your "political party" and violently regurgitate them at everyone you meet, are the ones that make all of this happen.
If you elect multi-millionaires to every political office in the federal government you should not be surprised if you are treated like one of their assets or possessions. You are merely another of their resources to be irresponsibly exploited for power, corporate profit, and taxes.
The only recourse against government leaders is dissent. However, in a miraculously fortunate (for our aristocratic leaders) and totally not contrived or engineered in any way sort of circumstance (yeah right!), a side effect of the two party system is that dissent and dissatisfaction against actions of the government are directed only at one of the parties and not the government as a whole.
Haven't you figured it out yet? If you are partisan, you cause shit like this because you won't keep your own party clean. You can't keep your finger out of other people's faces which means you will never deal with the issues in your own party and ultimately in your own mind. As long as you have a scapegoat to blame you will let your government get away with ANYTHING.
The result is that those of us who haven't done the Kool-Aid colonic like you have not only have to listen to you prattle on incandescently (because you get so hot about stuff that is completely inane, haha) but we also have to deal with the immense political problems facing our country which your actions create. Of course you never feel responsible for any of them because its always the other party's fault. In reality, the only reason we have these problems is because partisan people will never do the one thing that would give them incredible power to dictate the course of our country: hold their own party accountable.