A friend of mine met a homeless man at a shelter not too long ago. The homeless man was very excited that day because he found out he had finally gotten a job interview. It was a job that paid $10 and hour plus commission! It was a telemarketer firm.
I find myself being slightly kinder to telemarketers these days, yet more no more willing to buy what they're selling. I tried to work out a deal with one, but since I didn't fit in her script, she ended up hanging up on me.
Point is, people gotta make a living, and may not be proud of what they're doing right now, but you gotta start somewhere. Others could care less what puts $100,000 in their pocket every year in a legal way. So do realize that money takes precedence over values in this world far too often. It does sadden my soul.
Yep, another typical flamebait. When you get some of his credit card numbers, can you forward to me so that I can sell them to the mob, and the feds, and buy a bunch of illegal things with the money we steal from him? Not that I want to ruin his life, but... oh hell, let's ruin his life!
I seem to recall hearing on the news years ago that the CoS has a HUGE database on tapes of everyone (even dead people) that they 'pray' for in their huge temple. Or maybe that was the Mormons, I can't really remember.
Yes. Wouldn't it make more sense as a company to build your own little OS from the ground up to run that microwave rather than rely on a multi-tasking OS (linux or ms) which may not like certain requests from your users? What I'm saying, is that most 'embedded' devices, like the ECM on my car, should *NOT* be running 'MS Win2k-Embedded!' for fear of it blue-screening on me in the middle of the desert! (Linux crashes aren't as flashy, which is why I used the 'BSOD' example.)
Re:I quit reading this review
on
Noir
·
· Score: 1
No, I do understand the words, but he could have said it with much less fluff. When it contains fluff, it usually means it's a truckload full of shit.
Let's also not forget that Linux is good for multiple user, networked systems. That's what it was designed for. MS Windows was designed for individual personal computer use, not multiple user, networking use. The two sides keep trying to beat each other, when really they're not even competing in the same space. I would say that PDA's should be running Windows CE instead of Linux. And Linux should be running the Internet servers of the world, not Win2k.
Disclaimer: I realize Windows and Linux can do the same jobs like running a server, but each OS has it's own specialties that it's better at.
Any thoughts on whether "the next Sony" could be one of these? Right now it seems to me like the qualitative differences (texture, ergonomics, colors) are really the biggest thing separating (for instance, and ignoring other countries for now:)) Japanese and Korean products.
Actually, I have read in a Forbes magazine article about a year ago, that Samsung (for one) really is aiming to be 'low end crap' (although they obviously didn't word it like that) as the above slashdotter mentions in reply to your comment. So I doubt they will try to change their overall business plan to accomodate being known for their high quality products. Not to say that they wouldn't venture into the high-end market, but for now their business plan is aimed at the cheap sector of the market, and for good reason: There is lots of money to be made in the cheap market.
I've got a watch that store's phone numbers, alarms, and has multiple timer settings. I have a cell phone that stores phone numbers, voicemail, and retrieves incoming phone call phone numbers. And yet I still am sometimes at a loss for information! What a great thing a Palm would do to give me all my addresses, phone numbers, alarms, meeting notes, etc. in one place so that I don't have to waste hours looking for that stuff. Alas, I don't have enough money to purchase one right now.
You're right, uncreativity does not happen from being more organized! Rather, it is the other way around. What's more alarming is the fact that the original poster got modded up, instead of down just because he threw some philisophical BS that does not have any thing to do with this argument into his comments! Ridiculous.
Well, since I've disabled cookies, I guess I can't read Law.com's website from my work computer. Guess I'll just have to skip yet another interesting read, all because someone wants to know what I read online. Anyone know of a.edu website with a mirror of the page?;)
So please name me one sci-fi movie that completely lived up to your expectations of believable reality. What you describe borders on creating a movie of scientific fact, or plausibility, which I'm afraid, never sells at the box office. Apollo 13 did excellent for itself, but that's because it was historical. People like you would watch a sci-fi flick with the same elements of unbelievability and criticize it for all it's inaccuracies!
So if that means I do not sit around the office watercooler and discuss all of the inaccuracies or plausibility in the various Star Trek episodes because I am socially well adjusted, count me in!
Therefore, there is no "most infinite" god (since a god might be defined as a being that can perform an infinite number of things in zero time.)
Isn't this exactly what I'm saying, God is not confined to time, therefore He could do anything, and everything all at once? I mean, even talking about Him performing something 'at once' indicates it is occuring in our own 'space-time' which isn't really relavant to someone who is above our 4 dimensional space.
In other words, you "list" all the infinite things God can do, and I can immediately conceive of something he cannot.
I'm not listing things He can do, I'm saying all things that we, or any being confined to a non-infinte space can do, are derived directly from God. In the highest sense, God is everything. We would cease to exist if God decided to remove himself from our 4 dimensional space. However, that most certainly does not mean that we are gods ourselves, merely that our existence is based on this dimensionless, infinte God. Quit trying to confine my definition of an infinite God to your own existence, for you cannot adequately explain something which is infinite with your finite being.
It's entertainment, and there are plenty of philisophical flaws with The Matrix. But it was a well written story, with a VERY appropriate use of special effects.
When my friend and I first went to see it in the movie theatre, we thought it would be a lame story with really cool special effects. But instead, the story drove the special effects, rather than the other way around, which is why I love this movie so much. It's entertainment, not reality, people. Crouching Tiger is a wonderful movie too, but it's not reality. I still don't understand why so many people want reality in movies? Most movies are for entertainment purposes, not educational purposes, and The Matrix was definitely an entertainment movie. If you really think this movie was going to change society, just wait and see. It won't. Just sit back and enjoy the show, everyone.
Why can't people just enjoy the entertainment value of movies, instead of nitpicking all the little logic faults within a movie or TV show?
Yeah! Finally it's gone. Of course, I won't be buying any new Windows products if at all possible in the foreseeable future, so...
Oh well, at least they gave a hideously unproductive, and unhelpful 'helper' a cute death with the whole resume thing. Maybe he could go work for Tux and magically appear when you least expect him, and then throw a pie in your face. It'd be great revenge against all the Linux users for the pie in the face that Bill got a couple years back.
Well, he wouldn't be a creator of all universes then, would he? For there would have to be another universe outside of his 'finite time in the past' in which he did not control (I'm basing this on the previous post stating that God would be unconfined to time itself). He would therefore not be all-powerful, all-knowing, and always-present. Hence, he would not be 'God' with a capital 'G', just one of many gods.
I'm simply saying that a God that started everything would have to be in control of everything, and basically all 'universes' as we describe the physical realm, would spring from 'God'. He has no beginning or end, hence the argument about how he came to 'be' is not valid, because he has always been, and always will 'be'. He's infinite in all 'directions', in all dimensions.
Or think of it this way:
God = infinite (physically, spiritually, mentally, whatever)
gods = n-th dimensionally confined being (greater than humanity and our 4 dimensional space)
humans = 4th dimensionally challenged - we cannot exceed our own dimensions of 4 (height, length, width, time).
And the only one powerful enough to effect a permanent change on the other dimensions would be God. The 'gods' could interact with our 4 dimensions, but could not 'reconfigure' themselves or us to exist in a different set of dimensions.
And the idea of Superstrings (which is looking a healthy candidate for a Grand Unified Theory) explains any remaining phenomina just fine.
Hah! You think there can be one theory to explain everything?! What happens, when a new thoery comes along that totally reworks the 'Grand Unified Theory'? Much like Newtonian's laws of motion were completely changed by Einstein's relativity theories. Humans are far too fallable to expect to find an all-encompassing theory of everything.
This may seem to some to lead to an intelligent creator, but then we could ask the same things of the creator, has the creator always existed? or did the creator come into existence some finite time in the past?
Rather, the Creator IS. Then, now, and in the future He Is. If you give thought to the existence of an all-powerful God, wouldn't it make sense to not confine him to the time dimension, as He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient (or in layperson terms: all-powerful, always present/everywhere, and knows everything)?
I wonder how many times slashdotters have been picked up by Echeclon for "All your base are belong to us - Set us up the bomb" posts?;)
Anyways, the ACLU cares about my rights, please! All they care about is fighting for anyone and everyone to have freedom - but without responsibility for actions. But enough ranting on the ACLU.
What I really need to say is this:
Despite the fact that I think Echelon is wrong, it's not going to go away. Simply putting an ad in the paper, fighting it in the courts, and ranting on slashdot will not make it go completely away. It may get scaled back a bit, for a time, but the government has undoubtedly spent far too much money on it to pull the plug. Plus, they get to listen in on the governments of the world whenever they want! Why else would you have such a worldwide device?
This all sounds rather fishy to me. Consider this:
Last fall, O'Reilly and Bezos joined forces, investing in a Boston-based company called BountyQuest
So O'Reilly and Bezos both have a monetary interest in BountyQuest, agreed? Now look at this part of the article:
Matthew Powers, managing partner of the Silicon Valley office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, says it's unlikely the site would try to cover for Amazon.
First off, yes they would if Jeff Bezos is one of their primary investors, and head of one of the largest online companies around. Secondly, I find it ironic that O'Reilly is also a partner. Why try and blast Bezos' patent, then join forces on a seperate project? Sounds like a cleverly veiled plan to keep O'Reilly satisfied with money, the eventual stock rise of BountyQuest, while keeping the one click patent in place for Amazon.com. Bezos helps build up BountyQuest, they design a contest to expose 'prior art' for existing patents, then when people find some that resemble the Amazon.com one click patent, they pay them off with just enough cash to shut them up. No wonder the guy with the T-shirt got screwed. His sounds like the most plausible reason to dismiss Amazon's patent, but we can't have that now, can we? So give him a T-shirt, everyone will think the other three entries were 'better' and life will go on. I would really like to see all four entries in their entirety and judge for myself. Links anyone?
That may be true for historians looking for big trends, but we can learn a lot from our own past by looking backwards in our own history. I still have emails saved from almost 9 years ago, and WOW! I was such a clueless college kid. Some of the mistakes I made, and talked about on email with friends, really make me think twice now about what motivated me to be so stupid. If nothing else, we should be archiving our records, for you never know when you might become the next most famous person on the planet, and then everyone will want to know what got you there. Linus Torvalds certainly didn't write Linux to make himself famous. He did it for fun in his spare time, and now he's internationally known! Wouldn't it be great, when one of us reaches such a pivotal moment in time, to be able to say to everyone: "Look, this is what made me who I am, and here is what you should and should not do to become a valuable member of society."?
Yes. The picture from the Vietnam war of the North Vietnamese man with a gun to his head right before his execution in a public street in the middle of the day says a lot about the violence that the USA was exposed to during that time. Sometimes pictures like that speak volumes more than an entire diatribe in words describing the event.
That's because, in the US, when you say you're sorry, you are supposed to be doing it to admit you were in the wrong and to mend wounds that you created. Not give superficial apologies and then harbor bitterness and anger towards the other person because you 'know' they were really the wrong one. I prefer the American version.
Don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but it was pretty clearly a Chinese instigated accident, and the US should owe no apology. Probably more like the Chinese owe us an apology for allowing such dangerous behavior by one of their pilots.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Monday, April 9, 2001 11:46 p.m. EDT
Pentagon Official: Chicom Pilot's Dangerous Manuever No Accident
Pentagon officials now believe that a Communist Chinese fighter pilot who crashed into the South China Sea after colliding with a U.S. reconnaissance plane nine days ago deliberately tried to disrupt the American plane's airflow, a manuever that could have sent the larger aircraft into a potentially fatal tailspin.
"It happened before," a senior Pentagon official told New York's Newsday on Sunday. In recent encounters, Finback fighter pilot Wang Wei "would get his wing close enough - his wingtip under our wingtip - to disrupt the airflow over our plane's wings."
The unidentified Pentagon official explained that the loss of airflow can lead a plane to "stall, twist or drop."
U.S. officials familiar with the surveillance operation, code named "Big Look," said the midair collision between Wang's plane and the EP-3E reconnaissance aircraft flown by Lt. Shane Osborne was likely caused "by Wang having stolen Osborne's airflow."
Instead of sending the U.S. plane into a tailspin, Osborne compensated for Wang's manuever by dropping his wing to regain airflow. In the process, the EP-3's wing hit the Chinese fighter, sending Wang plummeting toward the sea.
Navy investigators can't be 100 percent sure of the "disrupted airflow" theory until Osborne and his crew are released and can speak freely.
But months before last Sunday's encounter, U.S. intelligence and military agencies had identified the Chinese pilot as "a skilled stick and rudder man who could coax his supersonic jet down to the estimated 300 mph speed of Big Look."
The Pentagon source told Newsday that Wang was "known among Big Look pilots for trying to steal their airflow."
That's why Navy brass are privately fuming over China's demand for an apology - because they believe Wang deliberately tried to bring down the U.S. plane with the dangerous maneuver that ended up costing his own life.
This is not a case of both nations being at fault. The Chinese are provoking us so that they can appear to be in the clear when they attack Taiwan and it's 'evil big-brother' the USA. If people are buying into the Chinese rhetoric bullshit, they are not thinking very clearly. George W is really wussing out on this one. And damnit, I helped vote him into office! I knew this was the one thing (his weak China policy) that would come back to bite us all in the butt.
Ah yes, I have seen my share of burning couches down on campus at OSU. But this brings to mind a story I saw on the history channel about Hitler's Nazi Germany and how the masses were kept in line. Basically, if you didn't want to get ratted on as a Jew lover, you had to rat others out, even if that meant ratting on someone who had done no wrong. That way, you could avoid having the storm troopers come to your house and beat on your family. Hitler didn't even to do much preaching of anti-Semitism, the situation perpetuated itself. So I would rather have damaging riots every once in awhile, rather than live in fear of being ratted on for something I didn't do.
But since banning firearms, England has gotten progressivly worse in the area of crime and violence overall! So what if I'm not getting pick-pocketed in broad daylight. The camera's do nothing to catch all the criminals who break into homes at night. Unless of course you're not opposed to having the police put camera's all over your house.
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of mine met a homeless man at a shelter not too long ago. The homeless man was very excited that day because he found out he had finally gotten a job interview. It was a job that paid $10 and hour plus commission! It was a telemarketer firm.
I find myself being slightly kinder to telemarketers these days, yet more no more willing to buy what they're selling. I tried to work out a deal with one, but since I didn't fit in her script, she ended up hanging up on me.
Point is, people gotta make a living, and may not be proud of what they're doing right now, but you gotta start somewhere. Others could care less what puts $100,000 in their pocket every year in a legal way. So do realize that money takes precedence over values in this world far too often. It does sadden my soul.
Yep, another typical flamebait. When you get some of his credit card numbers, can you forward to me so that I can sell them to the mob, and the feds, and buy a bunch of illegal things with the money we steal from him? Not that I want to ruin his life, but... oh hell, let's ruin his life!
I seem to recall hearing on the news years ago that the CoS has a HUGE database on tapes of everyone (even dead people) that they 'pray' for in their huge temple. Or maybe that was the Mormons, I can't really remember.
Yes. Wouldn't it make more sense as a company to build your own little OS from the ground up to run that microwave rather than rely on a multi-tasking OS (linux or ms) which may not like certain requests from your users? What I'm saying, is that most 'embedded' devices, like the ECM on my car, should *NOT* be running 'MS Win2k-Embedded!' for fear of it blue-screening on me in the middle of the desert! (Linux crashes aren't as flashy, which is why I used the 'BSOD' example.)
No, I do understand the words, but he could have said it with much less fluff. When it contains fluff, it usually means it's a truckload full of shit.
Disclaimer: I realize Windows and Linux can do the same jobs like running a server, but each OS has it's own specialties that it's better at.
Actually, I have read in a Forbes magazine article about a year ago, that Samsung (for one) really is aiming to be 'low end crap' (although they obviously didn't word it like that) as the above slashdotter mentions in reply to your comment. So I doubt they will try to change their overall business plan to accomodate being known for their high quality products. Not to say that they wouldn't venture into the high-end market, but for now their business plan is aimed at the cheap sector of the market, and for good reason: There is lots of money to be made in the cheap market.
You're right, uncreativity does not happen from being more organized! Rather, it is the other way around. What's more alarming is the fact that the original poster got modded up, instead of down just because he threw some philisophical BS that does not have any thing to do with this argument into his comments! Ridiculous.
Well, since I've disabled cookies, I guess I can't read Law.com's website from my work computer. Guess I'll just have to skip yet another interesting read, all because someone wants to know what I read online. Anyone know of a .edu website with a mirror of the page? ;)
So if that means I do not sit around the office watercooler and discuss all of the inaccuracies or plausibility in the various Star Trek episodes because I am socially well adjusted, count me in!
Isn't this exactly what I'm saying, God is not confined to time, therefore He could do anything, and everything all at once? I mean, even talking about Him performing something 'at once' indicates it is occuring in our own 'space-time' which isn't really relavant to someone who is above our 4 dimensional space.
In other words, you "list" all the infinite things God can do, and I can immediately conceive of something he cannot.
I'm not listing things He can do, I'm saying all things that we, or any being confined to a non-infinte space can do, are derived directly from God. In the highest sense, God is everything. We would cease to exist if God decided to remove himself from our 4 dimensional space. However, that most certainly does not mean that we are gods ourselves, merely that our existence is based on this dimensionless, infinte God. Quit trying to confine my definition of an infinite God to your own existence, for you cannot adequately explain something which is infinite with your finite being.
When my friend and I first went to see it in the movie theatre, we thought it would be a lame story with really cool special effects. But instead, the story drove the special effects, rather than the other way around, which is why I love this movie so much. It's entertainment, not reality, people. Crouching Tiger is a wonderful movie too, but it's not reality. I still don't understand why so many people want reality in movies? Most movies are for entertainment purposes, not educational purposes, and The Matrix was definitely an entertainment movie. If you really think this movie was going to change society, just wait and see. It won't. Just sit back and enjoy the show, everyone.
Why can't people just enjoy the entertainment value of movies, instead of nitpicking all the little logic faults within a movie or TV show?
Oh well, at least they gave a hideously unproductive, and unhelpful 'helper' a cute death with the whole resume thing. Maybe he could go work for Tux and magically appear when you least expect him, and then throw a pie in your face. It'd be great revenge against all the Linux users for the pie in the face that Bill got a couple years back.
Wait, that's already happened...
I'm simply saying that a God that started everything would have to be in control of everything, and basically all 'universes' as we describe the physical realm, would spring from 'God'. He has no beginning or end, hence the argument about how he came to 'be' is not valid, because he has always been, and always will 'be'. He's infinite in all 'directions', in all dimensions.
Or think of it this way:
God = infinite (physically, spiritually, mentally, whatever)
gods = n-th dimensionally confined being (greater than humanity and our 4 dimensional space)
humans = 4th dimensionally challenged - we cannot exceed our own dimensions of 4 (height, length, width, time).
And the only one powerful enough to effect a permanent change on the other dimensions would be God. The 'gods' could interact with our 4 dimensions, but could not 'reconfigure' themselves or us to exist in a different set of dimensions.
Hah! You think there can be one theory to explain everything?! What happens, when a new thoery comes along that totally reworks the 'Grand Unified Theory'? Much like Newtonian's laws of motion were completely changed by Einstein's relativity theories. Humans are far too fallable to expect to find an all-encompassing theory of everything.
Rather, the Creator IS. Then, now, and in the future He Is. If you give thought to the existence of an all-powerful God, wouldn't it make sense to not confine him to the time dimension, as He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient (or in layperson terms: all-powerful, always present/everywhere, and knows everything)?
Anyways, the ACLU cares about my rights, please! All they care about is fighting for anyone and everyone to have freedom - but without responsibility for actions. But enough ranting on the ACLU.
What I really need to say is this:
Despite the fact that I think Echelon is wrong, it's not going to go away. Simply putting an ad in the paper, fighting it in the courts, and ranting on slashdot will not make it go completely away. It may get scaled back a bit, for a time, but the government has undoubtedly spent far too much money on it to pull the plug. Plus, they get to listen in on the governments of the world whenever they want! Why else would you have such a worldwide device?
Last fall, O'Reilly and Bezos joined forces, investing in a Boston-based company called BountyQuest
So O'Reilly and Bezos both have a monetary interest in BountyQuest, agreed? Now look at this part of the article:
Matthew Powers, managing partner of the Silicon Valley office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, says it's unlikely the site would try to cover for Amazon.
First off, yes they would if Jeff Bezos is one of their primary investors, and head of one of the largest online companies around. Secondly, I find it ironic that O'Reilly is also a partner. Why try and blast Bezos' patent, then join forces on a seperate project? Sounds like a cleverly veiled plan to keep O'Reilly satisfied with money, the eventual stock rise of BountyQuest, while keeping the one click patent in place for Amazon.com. Bezos helps build up BountyQuest, they design a contest to expose 'prior art' for existing patents, then when people find some that resemble the Amazon.com one click patent, they pay them off with just enough cash to shut them up. No wonder the guy with the T-shirt got screwed. His sounds like the most plausible reason to dismiss Amazon's patent, but we can't have that now, can we? So give him a T-shirt, everyone will think the other three entries were 'better' and life will go on. I would really like to see all four entries in their entirety and judge for myself. Links anyone?
That may be true for historians looking for big trends, but we can learn a lot from our own past by looking backwards in our own history. I still have emails saved from almost 9 years ago, and WOW! I was such a clueless college kid. Some of the mistakes I made, and talked about on email with friends, really make me think twice now about what motivated me to be so stupid. If nothing else, we should be archiving our records, for you never know when you might become the next most famous person on the planet, and then everyone will want to know what got you there. Linus Torvalds certainly didn't write Linux to make himself famous. He did it for fun in his spare time, and now he's internationally known! Wouldn't it be great, when one of us reaches such a pivotal moment in time, to be able to say to everyone: "Look, this is what made me who I am, and here is what you should and should not do to become a valuable member of society."?
Yes. The picture from the Vietnam war of the North Vietnamese man with a gun to his head right before his execution in a public street in the middle of the day says a lot about the violence that the USA was exposed to during that time. Sometimes pictures like that speak volumes more than an entire diatribe in words describing the event.
That's because, in the US, when you say you're sorry, you are supposed to be doing it to admit you were in the wrong and to mend wounds that you created. Not give superficial apologies and then harbor bitterness and anger towards the other person because you 'know' they were really the wrong one. I prefer the American version.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Monday, April 9, 2001 11:46 p.m. EDT Pentagon Official: Chicom Pilot's Dangerous Manuever No Accident
Pentagon officials now believe that a Communist Chinese fighter pilot who crashed into the South China Sea after colliding with a U.S. reconnaissance plane nine days ago deliberately tried to disrupt the American plane's airflow, a manuever that could have sent the larger aircraft into a potentially fatal tailspin.
"It happened before," a senior Pentagon official told New York's Newsday on Sunday. In recent encounters, Finback fighter pilot Wang Wei "would get his wing close enough - his wingtip under our wingtip - to disrupt the airflow over our plane's wings."
The unidentified Pentagon official explained that the loss of airflow can lead a plane to "stall, twist or drop."
U.S. officials familiar with the surveillance operation, code named "Big Look," said the midair collision between Wang's plane and the EP-3E reconnaissance aircraft flown by Lt. Shane Osborne was likely caused "by Wang having stolen Osborne's airflow."
Instead of sending the U.S. plane into a tailspin, Osborne compensated for Wang's manuever by dropping his wing to regain airflow. In the process, the EP-3's wing hit the Chinese fighter, sending Wang plummeting toward the sea.
Navy investigators can't be 100 percent sure of the "disrupted airflow" theory until Osborne and his crew are released and can speak freely.
But months before last Sunday's encounter, U.S. intelligence and military agencies had identified the Chinese pilot as "a skilled stick and rudder man who could coax his supersonic jet down to the estimated 300 mph speed of Big Look."
The Pentagon source told Newsday that Wang was "known among Big Look pilots for trying to steal their airflow."
That's why Navy brass are privately fuming over China's demand for an apology - because they believe Wang deliberately tried to bring down the U.S. plane with the dangerous maneuver that ended up costing his own life.
This is not a case of both nations being at fault. The Chinese are provoking us so that they can appear to be in the clear when they attack Taiwan and it's 'evil big-brother' the USA. If people are buying into the Chinese rhetoric bullshit, they are not thinking very clearly. George W is really wussing out on this one. And damnit, I helped vote him into office! I knew this was the one thing (his weak China policy) that would come back to bite us all in the butt.
Ah yes, I have seen my share of burning couches down on campus at OSU. But this brings to mind a story I saw on the history channel about Hitler's Nazi Germany and how the masses were kept in line. Basically, if you didn't want to get ratted on as a Jew lover, you had to rat others out, even if that meant ratting on someone who had done no wrong. That way, you could avoid having the storm troopers come to your house and beat on your family. Hitler didn't even to do much preaching of anti-Semitism, the situation perpetuated itself. So I would rather have damaging riots every once in awhile, rather than live in fear of being ratted on for something I didn't do.
But since banning firearms, England has gotten progressivly worse in the area of crime and violence overall! So what if I'm not getting pick-pocketed in broad daylight. The camera's do nothing to catch all the criminals who break into homes at night. Unless of course you're not opposed to having the police put camera's all over your house.