Oh yes, because lobbying reform, more transparency, switch from FPTP to PR voting systems (as on much of the continent), and more involvement of the people in the democratic process "will almost certainly end in a dictator/military state".
That must be why there are no homeless people: they all prefer to be in jail than on the streets...
Oh wait.
Just because you found homelessness unbearable compared to being locked up, it doesn't mean most people feel that way. What is more, I don't know about your jurisdiction, but where I live, even getting arrested can have a significant effect on many jobs - and I'm not talking about high-flying bullshit, but meaningful work such as in healthcare, or anything which may require you to travel abroad.
More important than all of this is that deliberately getting arrested usually acts against your cause's favour. Sure, it'll get you a round of, "Right on, bro!"s from those who already support you, but those who perceive themselves as the law-abiding majority will dismiss you as a dirty scofflaw.
Anyone can deliberately lose their shit and receive a beating, reminisce fondly about how manly it made them feel, and criticise everyone else for not also requesting a beating. It requires patience and intelligence to organise and establish a long term plan to win people over.
Announcing that you're not, in fact, dressing up as someone bold enough to try to blow up Parliament (even though he failed), but as some fictional character in a third-rate flick, doesn't help your cause.
You need to get rid of your US-centric perspective.
To the whole world, the two mainstream US political parties are quite far to the right.
The Tory party in the UK is idealistically somewhere between the Democratic and Republican parties, but can't get rid of various left wing initiatives (e.g. the NHS) because they're too popular. It's trying hard to make them dysfunctional, and will probably succeed eventually, but that's where we are for now..
The primary purpose of the conservative party is to legislate in order to funnel money to their sponsors.
It doesn't believe in small government, but in privatised government, where the DWP channels billions to ineffective Work Programmes and medical assessments to line the pockets of private providers, and creates a "Universal Credit" welfare scheme which is nothing more than subsidising employers who do not pay a living wage; where the NHS must fire its managers so it must hire pricey healthcare management companies; where HMRC chases people over a few £100s of debt but turns a blind eye to avoision in the millions; where essential services are privatised, subsidised when they need to do something unprofitable, and bailed out because they're too big to fail,,,
Despite rumours to the contrary, if there are two things the Tory party is not, it is 1) of small government; 2) capitalist. It is corporatist, in the Italian sense.
One should not protest unless ready to start a revolution.
One time in band camp we thought it was unfair that they were increasing our dues so instead of petitioning for a review we set fire to the buildings and killed all the band leaders and took their wives as spoils of war.
Indeed. America celebrates independence. Britain celebrates that someone failed to achieve independence. Both equally bullshit, but ours is more funny.
If you don't know about agents provocateurs, you really ought not to be at a protest - it's like crossing the road without knowing that you might have to check for traffic.
IOW, protest leaders need to give some basic training to protesters.
Wild guess: you donned a mask last night, and unable to explain your actions beyond "row row fight the powah v for vendetta neva 4give neva 4get fawkes was the only person to ever enter parliament with honest intentions LOLOLOL", you're.. err.. attacking my username?
The establishment really ought to love "Anonymous". Unlike every successful movement, it has no direction and no organisation, therefore it will make no progress. It's just a bunch of kids saying, "We're not very happy about stuff and we think someone should do something about it!"
Well, I'd say that it was designed to be used as a sexbot, and was used as a sexbot. Yes, it's a cucumber, but one carefully selected for relevant dimensions, then made available (how else would it get 20,000 responses, 1,000 of which are explicit?) in a sex shop.
I think I understand where you're coming from - this is not like those spammy sexbots which sometimes pop up on Skype and ask you whether you're horny and bla bla, and if you tell them to go away they seem to respond with random sexually explicit remarks. It's not "entrapment". If this were a real girl, there'd be no room for a "she was asking for it" defence to the explicit requests - not because it's wrong to merely request sexual things in general (as long as you can take "no" for an answer), but because it's wrong to request sexual things from a child.
Agreed that unlawfulness of even CG depictions muddies the waters further, and of course it depends exactly how the laws are written, but I would say then that creating this visual bot for the purpose of titillation shows far more of a guilty mind than merely role-playing. Does, "Take your clothes off," mean, "You - adult role-player behind this image - please take your clothes off"? Does it mean, "Describe taking your clothes off without really doing it"? Or does it mean, "Please redraw your obvious CG avatar as unclothed" (would people really assume this is even possible?)?
I don't find human honeypots which *prompt* criminal behaviour to be appropriate - I think they're a thoroughly lazy ways to police, and create a very easy arms race in which your objective becomes not to avoid the criminal behaviour but to identify the cop in plain sight. Spam honeypots are different, as they're merely identifying the automated behaviour of a bot, already set into motion by the human - IOW the crime was already taking place before the honeypot arrived. This said, I don't think this is like e.g. a police vice operation, because:
1) (at least in much of Europe) It is regarded that various methods of soliciting a prostitute are the (bigger) problem, not being a prostitute - indeed, prostitution is often legal. There's nothing wrong with (a cop) pretending to be a adult prostitute because there's nothing inherently wrong with adult prostitution - but there is something wrong with pretending to be a child prostitute because there is something inherently wrong with child prostitution. As for the comparison, to quote my other post:
I believe that when a cop dresses as a prostitute, they are playing the role of a woman who is sexually appealing to hetereosexual men, even though the cop would never actually do anything sexually explicit. Similarly, I believe that this CGI child is playing the role of a girl who is sexually appealing to paedophiles, even though the CGI child never actually does anything sexually explicit.
2) The police are (comparitively) well-regulated, audited and built as far as possible without a profit motive. They reflect, via democratic process, the wishes of society. But these researchers are prompting paedophilic role play, then trying to sell a product based on it. The behaviour was unsolicited - so blatantly that Europol's immediate response was, "No, this is not appropriate". They could have found this out before beginning the whole project with a short meeting with relevant representatives of law enforcement.
"I can't think of a way to measure contribution precisely, even though there have been loads of effective worker cooperatives across the world, therefore socialism as an ideal does not reward labour."
I'm not sure I understand this belief that capitalism <-> best response to demand with supply. The National Health Service, which is communistic in principle (to each according to need - from each according to ability), supplies the demand for British healthcare more completely and efficiently than the US market supplies the demand for American healthcare. Energy companies, which are capitalist on paper but from a cartel in practice, almost always deliver - albeit inefficiently - the energy needs of the UK. Any dominant private company - e.g. Tesco supermarket in the UK - could continue carefully applying its algorithms to supply food efficiently to consumers, without needing to squeeze its suppliers nor add a mark-up to make a profit for shareholders. Or it could redirect profits to its employee-owners, like the socialistic John Lewis Partnership - but selfishness precludes it.
Trying to redefine selfishness so that it only covers theft is not going to work.
Capitalism incorporates one a method of resource allocation which balances society's needs against the interests of the wealthy. There's nothing particularly great or particularly awful about it. It's not uniquely good, or uniquely bad. Its ideal needs to be considered alongside other methods of resource allocation - as indeed happens already in any healthy country, but fails to happen in a failing one.
Slashdot Mirror
trololo
Oh yes, because lobbying reform, more transparency, switch from FPTP to PR voting systems (as on much of the continent), and more involvement of the people in the democratic process "will almost certainly end in a dictator/military state".
Idiot.
Hm, hippies (just short for "hipster", after all :D) had clearer aims, but still not clear enough, which is why neoconservatism could rise in the '70s.
Go and live under a fascist dictatorship, like my ancestors on my father's side, and then come back to me with your "tyranny" bullshit, plskthx.
That must be why there are no homeless people: they all prefer to be in jail than on the streets...
Oh wait.
Just because you found homelessness unbearable compared to being locked up, it doesn't mean most people feel that way. What is more, I don't know about your jurisdiction, but where I live, even getting arrested can have a significant effect on many jobs - and I'm not talking about high-flying bullshit, but meaningful work such as in healthcare, or anything which may require you to travel abroad.
More important than all of this is that deliberately getting arrested usually acts against your cause's favour. Sure, it'll get you a round of, "Right on, bro!"s from those who already support you, but those who perceive themselves as the law-abiding majority will dismiss you as a dirty scofflaw.
Anyone can deliberately lose their shit and receive a beating, reminisce fondly about how manly it made them feel, and criticise everyone else for not also requesting a beating. It requires patience and intelligence to organise and establish a long term plan to win people over.
Announcing that you're not, in fact, dressing up as someone bold enough to try to blow up Parliament (even though he failed), but as some fictional character in a third-rate flick, doesn't help your cause.
"about" as in have an awareness of them, so you don't go all Tarzan when someone shouts "LOL LET'S TORCH THE PIGS LOL".
I see you're preaching for the Church of American Conservatism, and I am not interested in your leaflets.
I don't want to change the size of government. I want the people to take back control of government.
You're just trying to sell me a power vacuum.
You need to get rid of your US-centric perspective.
To the whole world, the two mainstream US political parties are quite far to the right.
The Tory party in the UK is idealistically somewhere between the Democratic and Republican parties, but can't get rid of various left wing initiatives (e.g. the NHS) because they're too popular. It's trying hard to make them dysfunctional, and will probably succeed eventually, but that's where we are for now..
The choir always discusses matters of faith.
In the UK, we have a very powerful government. It just doesn't exert its power in the interests of the people.
So, again, tear down that straw man.
The primary purpose of the conservative party is to legislate in order to funnel money to their sponsors.
It doesn't believe in small government, but in privatised government, where the DWP channels billions to ineffective Work Programmes and medical assessments to line the pockets of private providers, and creates a "Universal Credit" welfare scheme which is nothing more than subsidising employers who do not pay a living wage; where the NHS must fire its managers so it must hire pricey healthcare management companies; where HMRC chases people over a few £100s of debt but turns a blind eye to avoision in the millions; where essential services are privatised, subsidised when they need to do something unprofitable, and bailed out because they're too big to fail,,,
Despite rumours to the contrary, if there are two things the Tory party is not, it is 1) of small government; 2) capitalist. It is corporatist, in the Italian sense.
Being arrested is not a badge of honour, kid.
And having states arrest people for protesting should not be a goal.
One should not protest unless ready to start a revolution.
One time in band camp we thought it was unfair that they were increasing our dues so instead of petitioning for a review we set fire to the buildings and killed all the band leaders and took their wives as spoils of war.
In the spirit of things, I choose to set fire to your strawman.
Well, the cheapest energy plans are Direct Debit, so the money would be taken automatically.
And they have online statements, so these would just be printouts.
The greatest shame is thinking about how much HP made from these printouts, and Time Warner from the Guy Fawkes masks.
Indeed. America celebrates independence. Britain celebrates that someone failed to achieve independence. Both equally bullshit, but ours is more funny.
If you don't know about agents provocateurs, you really ought not to be at a protest - it's like crossing the road without knowing that you might have to check for traffic.
IOW, protest leaders need to give some basic training to protesters.
Wild guess: you donned a mask last night, and unable to explain your actions beyond "row row fight the powah v for vendetta neva 4give neva 4get fawkes was the only person to ever enter parliament with honest intentions LOLOLOL", you're.. err.. attacking my username?
Maybe it's time to stop supporting three political parties all of which are further to the right than Thatcher.
But I guess everyone has to start somewhere, and that somewhere sometimes involves wearing a mask and burning stuff.
The establishment really ought to love "Anonymous". Unlike every successful movement, it has no direction and no organisation, therefore it will make no progress. It's just a bunch of kids saying, "We're not very happy about stuff and we think someone should do something about it!"
OK. You go first.
Well, I'd say that it was designed to be used as a sexbot, and was used as a sexbot. Yes, it's a cucumber, but one carefully selected for relevant dimensions, then made available (how else would it get 20,000 responses, 1,000 of which are explicit?) in a sex shop.
I think I understand where you're coming from - this is not like those spammy sexbots which sometimes pop up on Skype and ask you whether you're horny and bla bla, and if you tell them to go away they seem to respond with random sexually explicit remarks. It's not "entrapment". If this were a real girl, there'd be no room for a "she was asking for it" defence to the explicit requests - not because it's wrong to merely request sexual things in general (as long as you can take "no" for an answer), but because it's wrong to request sexual things from a child.
And no worries re the earlier remarks.
Agreed that unlawfulness of even CG depictions muddies the waters further, and of course it depends exactly how the laws are written, but I would say then that creating this visual bot for the purpose of titillation shows far more of a guilty mind than merely role-playing. Does, "Take your clothes off," mean, "You - adult role-player behind this image - please take your clothes off"? Does it mean, "Describe taking your clothes off without really doing it"? Or does it mean, "Please redraw your obvious CG avatar as unclothed" (would people really assume this is even possible?)?
I don't find human honeypots which *prompt* criminal behaviour to be appropriate - I think they're a thoroughly lazy ways to police, and create a very easy arms race in which your objective becomes not to avoid the criminal behaviour but to identify the cop in plain sight. Spam honeypots are different, as they're merely identifying the automated behaviour of a bot, already set into motion by the human - IOW the crime was already taking place before the honeypot arrived. This said, I don't think this is like e.g. a police vice operation, because:
1) (at least in much of Europe) It is regarded that various methods of soliciting a prostitute are the (bigger) problem, not being a prostitute - indeed, prostitution is often legal. There's nothing wrong with (a cop) pretending to be a adult prostitute because there's nothing inherently wrong with adult prostitution - but there is something wrong with pretending to be a child prostitute because there is something inherently wrong with child prostitution. As for the comparison, to quote my other post:
I believe that when a cop dresses as a prostitute, they are playing the role of a woman who is sexually appealing to hetereosexual men, even though the cop would never actually do anything sexually explicit. Similarly, I believe that this CGI child is playing the role of a girl who is sexually appealing to paedophiles, even though the CGI child never actually does anything sexually explicit.
2) The police are (comparitively) well-regulated, audited and built as far as possible without a profit motive. They reflect, via democratic process, the wishes of society. But these researchers are prompting paedophilic role play, then trying to sell a product based on it. The behaviour was unsolicited - so blatantly that Europol's immediate response was, "No, this is not appropriate". They could have found this out before beginning the whole project with a short meeting with relevant representatives of law enforcement.
"I can't think of a way to measure contribution precisely, even though there have been loads of effective worker cooperatives across the world, therefore socialism as an ideal does not reward labour."
I'm not sure I understand this belief that capitalism <-> best response to demand with supply. The National Health Service, which is communistic in principle (to each according to need - from each according to ability), supplies the demand for British healthcare more completely and efficiently than the US market supplies the demand for American healthcare. Energy companies, which are capitalist on paper but from a cartel in practice, almost always deliver - albeit inefficiently - the energy needs of the UK. Any dominant private company - e.g. Tesco supermarket in the UK - could continue carefully applying its algorithms to supply food efficiently to consumers, without needing to squeeze its suppliers nor add a mark-up to make a profit for shareholders. Or it could redirect profits to its employee-owners, like the socialistic John Lewis Partnership - but selfishness precludes it.
Trying to redefine selfishness so that it only covers theft is not going to work.
Capitalism incorporates one a method of resource allocation which balances society's needs against the interests of the wealthy. There's nothing particularly great or particularly awful about it. It's not uniquely good, or uniquely bad. Its ideal needs to be considered alongside other methods of resource allocation - as indeed happens already in any healthy country, but fails to happen in a failing one.