Does it matter? As long as it doesn't match your buying habits, they have lousy information. Their software will infer different things about you than are true, which is the point.
But, yes, on principle you should search for something really bizarre every now and then... eel weirs or something.
you want nothing to do with them because they've already violated your trust.
They never had my trust. What they've done is confirm the reasons why I never trusted them in the first place.
They're already keeping a profile on you. It's probably renewing with your IP and cookies and not actually linked to your identity.
My browsers don't accept 3rd party cookies, and I delete any cookie which sneaks in and set a rule to block them. I have cookies set from around 7 domains in my main browser.
They may have information in an abstract sense, but things like HTTP Switchboard means I can selectively disable the crap I don't want.
Is it perfect? Probably not. Does it prevent them from gathering meaningful data? Well, I hope so.
It's only a matter of time before the ad blockers stop working.
And then the internet as we know it will truly be broken.
I'm just suggesting that they may have never lost your trust if they gave you good content about their products rather than limiting themselves to car-commercial and magazine-like mindless impressions.
What was Samual L Jackson's line in Pulp Fiction? "Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker."
They were never going to get my trust in the first place. They're in marketing, by definition I distrust them.
IMHO, this should be part of your profile. When it comes time for you to purchase something, instead of getting some flashy ad in your face, you would get a pile of specs veted by a third party.
WTF? You mean I should provide the list of things I might be interested in so that a fscking 3rd party can know what to show me? Really? That's your solution?
What does the third party bring to me here? My opinion, is not a damned thing.
This benefits marketers, and whoever this mythical third party I'd be entrusting with my information. But, it in no way benefits me. I'm not here to enrich some marketing company. Because I don't give a damn about their revenue stream or their business model.
I'll do my own damned product research, thank you. This third party you're talking about is only interested in their bottom line and hawking whatever product is paying them
See, I just don't trust the advertising companies at all, and I certainly don't trust them enough to provide them with analytics information.
So, you can by all means allow these things to gather information about you. And I will block them with every tool available to me.
Instead... sadly, they send you crap and you fight to tell them that you're not interested in their jingle, bluster or shiny copy.
Well, then you're doing it wrong.
I know I'm not interested in their crap. And blocking it so I never see it and they can't collect any data about me means that I don't ever have to worry that they're showing me stupid advertising... because as much as possible, I don't see any of it.
The only way to win this game is not to even play.
The premise that I'm being rewarded for handing over my information so that some marketing company can advertise effectively is somehow to my benefit is bullshit as far as I'm concerned. They're not doing it for my benefit, they're doing it for their own.
Funny, I use search engines and read review sites.
Ads have never added any benefit to me on the internet, and I simply don't care to provide them with the information they'd need to do a targeted ad.
Because I'm not interested in either the ad, or having these companies know anything about who I am and what I like.
In fact, ads want me to let arbitrary web sites run scripts and other crap which makes things less secure. Think I'd trust the people at DoubleClick to run scripts or Flash? Hell no, the entire domain is blocked at my firewall.
Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing. They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you.
So, are you shilling for the ad industry, or do you really believe this is supposed to be a good thing?
Sorry, but I'm not interested in your ads of any form, I'm not interested in targeted ads at all, and I don't trust the entities gathering this information with any of it, or that they won't abuse it.
So, screw your contextual advertising. I will continue to block every ad tracking site I can identify, block your ads, your web bugs, and everything else I can.
If you think letting unknown third parties collect information about you, put cookies on your machine so they can know everywhere else you go, run scripts, run Flash... or pretty much anything else... is a good idea, then you're either clueless, or getting paid from this.
I think your entire premise is flawed, or dishonest.
Killing someone is already illegal, and Im of the school of thought that says having redundant laws is always a bad thing.
Except, making it illegal to do the thing which could potentially lead to you killing someone isn't redundant.
Otherwise, drunk driving, seat belts, helmets and speed limits wouldn't be necessary until you killed someone.
Distracted driving laws are intended to stop the problem in the first place, instead of waiting until people actually get killed. They allow you to fine people for doing stupid and dangerous things before someone dies.
And, judging by the number of people I see still texting and driving (badly), the only way I see this changing is through a mechanism like this. Because without fines (and hopefully demerit points), people will just keep doing it... right up until they do kill someone.
Yeah, throw in the random human factor... cut off the car, turn right from the left lane, ignore speed limits, tailgate, drift from one lane to the other while texting, make unsafe rolling stops through an intersection where even though the car has a green light it's going to have to jam on its brakes, children randomly running into the street, and cyclists who alternate between acting like they're entitled to drive on the road and driving anywhere else that suits them, pedestrians who come out from between cars and don't look.
Hell, put it behind a dump truck spraying gravel. Find a city bus which is going to jam into your lane whether you're in it or not. Ambulances at intersections. A construction detour which technically has you not following any identifiable lanes. Have people run red lights and blow through stop signs.
You know, the kind of stuff we all see every day. Try like hell to find out what its corner cases are. I'm sure they're there.
Teaching it the rules of the road only goes so far. Because many drivers and pedestrians seem oblivious to those.
You'll note I was talking about the stock markets.
Which are operating under the unsupportable, and irrational premise that all companies need to grow every single year, and that it's mathematically unsustainable without new markets.
So, the way the stock market operates these days is a giant ponzi scheme which can't possibly be sustained.
I'll play the asshole in this comic bit: Why should everyone in the world have 2010 American standard of living? We're wasteful, bigoted, conspicuous consumers at (or near) the top of the consumption food chain.
Because pop-culture has told us that's how you know you've made it.
And because the stock market needs the entire world to grow their income and spend more so than companies can keep up this never-ending annual growth -- otherwise, people will realize how much of a lie the stock market is.
Because, these days, if you're not growing 5-10% per annum, you must be in decline. Never mind the fact that it's mathematically impossible to keep doing this.
Globalization means we need everybody to be spending as much as possible, or the whole house of cards will collapse.
It's you who are being dishonest or lazy by claiming otherwise, there is lots of evidence to bear this out, you just refuse to find it or test for yourself.
Bullshit.
Sorry, but my wife has a Win 7 Pro laptop from work.
It recently had to be upgraded from 4GB to 12GB because at 4GB it was a complete and utter dog of a machine.
It was slow, unresponsive, and using so much VM that it was thrashing from the first application you opened.
In my experience, a 4GB machine is using almost 2GB of RAM by the time it boots with nothing running on it.
I've got a Win 7 VM open right now. It's got no programs running other than what starts with the OS. It's using 1.77GB of RAM. That's essentially just Windows.
I can't imagine trying to run it on a machine with 1GB of RAM, and I'm betting you're not using a machine like that, and that if you did you'd be pounding your head against the table in frustration.
So, having directly seen Win 7 sucking up resources like mad on a machine with 4GB, I find it implausible that with 1GB it's anything but a steaming turd. I've never seen Windows 8, so it's possible they've done some pretty cool things and trimmed it down.
I completely agree most people haven't needed a faster CPU in years, unless they're in the hard-core gamer category or doing serious computational work.
Memory, on the other hand, is something you've steadily needed more of over time.
Me, I'm betting with 1GB of RAM on a modern Windows version, and you'll already be using swap space before it's even done booting.
And then it's going to just be slow from there.
With "Outlook, Work, and a browser", it's going to be thrashing like mad.
Really, "able to run on a wide range of hardware, including older slower machines" means, yes, you can, it doesn't mean you'll like it or that it's a good idea.
Hell, our household machine with 4GB of RAM and XP Pro doesn't feel like it's got enough memory.
Sure, make allowances for multiple-core and multiple CPUs on the not-so-low end, but making the minimum requirement a single CPU was definitely smart on their end.
You say smart, I say lazy and/or dishonest.
Because those specs weren't usable on Vista, definitely wouldn't have been usable on Win 7, likely aren't usable on Win 8, and probably won't be usable on Win 10.
I dare you to spend a week on a machine with 1GB of RAM running Windows, and then tell us they're sane minimums. My guess is you'll go crazy before the week runs out.
Sure, it'll load, and you can eventually get a program to launch. But don't expect anything which isn't constantly thrashing and driving you crazy.
My wife's work laptop until recently had 4GB of RAM and Windows 7 on it -- and it was pretty damned slow and awful.
I can only imagine that 1GB of RAM means you want to shove a knitting needle into the face of Steve Ballmer.
a single-core 1GHz, 32-bit chip with just 1GB of RAM
I think this described my mother's laptop to a T.
And I can tell you in no uncertain terms, it wasn't enough resources then, and it isn't enough now.
Her laptop runs Vista, and it's so slow as to be almost unusable.
Unless Microsoft has really done some incredible optimizing, a machine with those specs is a frigging joke, and would likely be terrible to use.
Microsoft's minimum specs have been too low since, well, forever actually -- every system I've seen for the last 20+ years which was the "minimum spec" was barely usable.
This is a marketing tactic, not a measure of what will be a useful machine.
What I don't understand is the lack of concern about security.
Because they don't give a shit about your security or anybody else's, and they're too stupid to realize that by weakening it for them it weakens it for anybody.
They just want unlimited ability to get any piece of data they want without warrant, oversight, or obstacles.
They want it to be illegal for you to have information they can't readily get.
The scary thing is, they couldn't possibly not know that "what about the children" is a bullshit argument designed to get people to go along with it. Every mother in America says "well, if it's to protect the children, it must be good".
In reality, children and terrorism have become the magic keys to unlock the kingdom, and bypass any pesky laws and constitutional protections.
And anybody who disagrees with them is clearly in favor of kiddy fiddlers and terrorists.
If this kind of thing isn't fixed soon, America is marching into becoming a facist state, while pretending to still be defenders of freedom and justice. And people are applauding this as it goes along.
These guys have decided to go straight for the "it's for the children" argument.
It's a stupid argument. It says that in order to protect hypothetical children from hypothetical threats, all people must give up their rights to make it easier for law enforcement to get information without cause or warrant.
And since you've already had your rights taken away, we will also use this for plenty of other things. Like parallel construction of what we charge you for, and whatever else we can think of to misuse this information for.
Fucking lying assholes and fascists.
America is pretty much screwed at this point, and unfortunately, that is affecting everyone else on the damned planet.
Obama is just as happy to create the surveillance state as Bush was. Audacity of Hope is such a fucking lie.
The quasi-moons are more moon-like than planet like, because the quasi-moons orbit planets and quasi-planets orbit the sun, so in that regard they're almost entirely different, except for how they're not. =)
If the quasi-moon orbited the sun it would be quasi-planet, but then it's too small, so then it just becomes another piece of space debris with an orbit around the sun. And then it's probably an asteroid. Unless it's a really big asteroid, then it's kind of like a planet. Or possibly a quasi-planet.
Yeah, and when times changed it got amended. But the right to bear arms hasn't been amended, and until it does, it still stands as the law of the land that all arms are included.
Has the 4th amendment been updated?
Or are you under the illusion that this one amendment is sacrosanct while they crap all over the rest of it?
Because blanket surveillance, property seizure because police lie and say they suspected drugs, and parallel construction are pretty much in violation of your Constitution as well.
Absolutely! How else is the public supposed to support a revolt against tyranny?
Look, you're descending into tyranny now. So, either get on with it, or stop whining about how you'll do it when you get around to it or someone really outlaws jumbo sized soda.
Otherwise, it's just lip service. Your government is already ignoring your Constitution on a large scale, but apparently nobody gives a damn.
As are those, who try to limit the Second Amendment
Everyone who isn't an American often finds themselves wondering at your fascination with weapons.
Because in the rest of the world, cops and soldiers are the only ones walking around with weapons, and the only places where people walk around with weapons have generally degraded into a fairly lawless state.
Honestly, it seems uncivilized to many of us.
yet, you chose to ignore them completely
You know, I assumed you were joking about brass knuckles and swords.
I thus doubt your honesty and sincerity here and am unlikely to respond again.
Awww, I'm utterly heartbroken, can you tell?
Do you bitch this loudly about when they violate your first amendment, or your fourth amendment, or your fifth amendment? Or anything else? Or is it just guns in particular you worry yourself about?
Your government is shitting all over your rights, as well as those of everyone else on the planet... and you're on a screed about being able to carry swords and brass knuckles.
So, you'll excuse me if I discount you as yet another American gun nut who feels he should be allowed to own an assault rifle.
Most of your Constitutional amendments are to correct previous bits of stupidity, like not letting women vote. It's a recognition that situations change and that an overly simplistic set of laws doesn't help anybody.
That implies people think about these problems and seek solutions.
But when it comes to the second amendment, it comes down to "Yarg! Our guns!" (or swords, apparently).
A ceremony at Tiananmen Square would release 10,000 pigeons at sunrise to symbolize an era of peace.
I wonder if any appreciates the dichotomy of those two things.
Because, it's not exactly true.
The Cultural revolution wasn't exactly a shining moment. Or the other reason Tiananmen Square is famous. Or many other things that's happened over the last 6 decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it matter? As long as it doesn't match your buying habits, they have lousy information. Their software will infer different things about you than are true, which is the point.
But, yes, on principle you should search for something really bizarre every now and then ... eel weirs or something.
They never had my trust. What they've done is confirm the reasons why I never trusted them in the first place.
My browsers don't accept 3rd party cookies, and I delete any cookie which sneaks in and set a rule to block them. I have cookies set from around 7 domains in my main browser.
They may have information in an abstract sense, but things like HTTP Switchboard means I can selectively disable the crap I don't want.
Is it perfect? Probably not. Does it prevent them from gathering meaningful data? Well, I hope so.
And then the internet as we know it will truly be broken.
What was Samual L Jackson's line in Pulp Fiction? "Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker."
They were never going to get my trust in the first place. They're in marketing, by definition I distrust them.
Good. The job of the sim director is to ALWAYS be in a bad mood for something like this.
It's like QA, your job is to break it, in every way you can think of. If the people who built it think that's harsh or unfair, too damned bad.
I've never seen one of these cars in action, but my assumption is there are probably cases in which it will fail quite spectacularly.
And in this case, the "oh, the running over the old lady bug, yeah, that's fixed in car 1.3, you should upgrade" is not gonna cut it.
So, really mess with them ... look for chaps, a gimp mask, and KY jelly.
If you're going to let them have your information, you might as well poison the well.
WTF? You mean I should provide the list of things I might be interested in so that a fscking 3rd party can know what to show me? Really? That's your solution?
What does the third party bring to me here? My opinion, is not a damned thing.
This benefits marketers, and whoever this mythical third party I'd be entrusting with my information. But, it in no way benefits me. I'm not here to enrich some marketing company. Because I don't give a damn about their revenue stream or their business model.
I'll do my own damned product research, thank you. This third party you're talking about is only interested in their bottom line and hawking whatever product is paying them
See, I just don't trust the advertising companies at all, and I certainly don't trust them enough to provide them with analytics information.
So, you can by all means allow these things to gather information about you. And I will block them with every tool available to me.
Well, then you're doing it wrong.
I know I'm not interested in their crap. And blocking it so I never see it and they can't collect any data about me means that I don't ever have to worry that they're showing me stupid advertising ... because as much as possible, I don't see any of it.
The only way to win this game is not to even play.
The premise that I'm being rewarded for handing over my information so that some marketing company can advertise effectively is somehow to my benefit is bullshit as far as I'm concerned. They're not doing it for my benefit, they're doing it for their own.
Funny, I use search engines and read review sites.
Ads have never added any benefit to me on the internet, and I simply don't care to provide them with the information they'd need to do a targeted ad.
Because I'm not interested in either the ad, or having these companies know anything about who I am and what I like.
In fact, ads want me to let arbitrary web sites run scripts and other crap which makes things less secure. Think I'd trust the people at DoubleClick to run scripts or Flash? Hell no, the entire domain is blocked at my firewall.
So, are you shilling for the ad industry, or do you really believe this is supposed to be a good thing?
Sorry, but I'm not interested in your ads of any form, I'm not interested in targeted ads at all, and I don't trust the entities gathering this information with any of it, or that they won't abuse it.
So, screw your contextual advertising. I will continue to block every ad tracking site I can identify, block your ads, your web bugs, and everything else I can.
If you think letting unknown third parties collect information about you, put cookies on your machine so they can know everywhere else you go, run scripts, run Flash ... or pretty much anything else ... is a good idea, then you're either clueless, or getting paid from this.
I think your entire premise is flawed, or dishonest.
Except, making it illegal to do the thing which could potentially lead to you killing someone isn't redundant.
Otherwise, drunk driving, seat belts, helmets and speed limits wouldn't be necessary until you killed someone.
Distracted driving laws are intended to stop the problem in the first place, instead of waiting until people actually get killed. They allow you to fine people for doing stupid and dangerous things before someone dies.
And, judging by the number of people I see still texting and driving (badly), the only way I see this changing is through a mechanism like this. Because without fines (and hopefully demerit points), people will just keep doing it ... right up until they do kill someone.
Yeah, throw in the random human factor ... cut off the car, turn right from the left lane, ignore speed limits, tailgate, drift from one lane to the other while texting, make unsafe rolling stops through an intersection where even though the car has a green light it's going to have to jam on its brakes, children randomly running into the street, and cyclists who alternate between acting like they're entitled to drive on the road and driving anywhere else that suits them, pedestrians who come out from between cars and don't look.
Hell, put it behind a dump truck spraying gravel. Find a city bus which is going to jam into your lane whether you're in it or not. Ambulances at intersections. A construction detour which technically has you not following any identifiable lanes. Have people run red lights and blow through stop signs.
You know, the kind of stuff we all see every day. Try like hell to find out what its corner cases are. I'm sure they're there.
Teaching it the rules of the road only goes so far. Because many drivers and pedestrians seem oblivious to those.
You'll note I was talking about the stock markets.
Which are operating under the unsupportable, and irrational premise that all companies need to grow every single year, and that it's mathematically unsustainable without new markets.
So, the way the stock market operates these days is a giant ponzi scheme which can't possibly be sustained.
Because pop-culture has told us that's how you know you've made it.
And because the stock market needs the entire world to grow their income and spend more so than companies can keep up this never-ending annual growth -- otherwise, people will realize how much of a lie the stock market is.
Because, these days, if you're not growing 5-10% per annum, you must be in decline. Never mind the fact that it's mathematically impossible to keep doing this.
Globalization means we need everybody to be spending as much as possible, or the whole house of cards will collapse.
Bullshit.
Sorry, but my wife has a Win 7 Pro laptop from work.
It recently had to be upgraded from 4GB to 12GB because at 4GB it was a complete and utter dog of a machine.
It was slow, unresponsive, and using so much VM that it was thrashing from the first application you opened.
In my experience, a 4GB machine is using almost 2GB of RAM by the time it boots with nothing running on it.
I've got a Win 7 VM open right now. It's got no programs running other than what starts with the OS. It's using 1.77GB of RAM. That's essentially just Windows.
I can't imagine trying to run it on a machine with 1GB of RAM, and I'm betting you're not using a machine like that, and that if you did you'd be pounding your head against the table in frustration.
So, having directly seen Win 7 sucking up resources like mad on a machine with 4GB, I find it implausible that with 1GB it's anything but a steaming turd. I've never seen Windows 8, so it's possible they've done some pretty cool things and trimmed it down.
But I doubt it.
I completely agree most people haven't needed a faster CPU in years, unless they're in the hard-core gamer category or doing serious computational work.
Memory, on the other hand, is something you've steadily needed more of over time.
Me, I'm betting with 1GB of RAM on a modern Windows version, and you'll already be using swap space before it's even done booting.
And then it's going to just be slow from there.
With "Outlook, Work, and a browser", it's going to be thrashing like mad.
Really, "able to run on a wide range of hardware, including older slower machines" means, yes, you can, it doesn't mean you'll like it or that it's a good idea.
Hell, our household machine with 4GB of RAM and XP Pro doesn't feel like it's got enough memory.
You say smart, I say lazy and/or dishonest.
Because those specs weren't usable on Vista, definitely wouldn't have been usable on Win 7, likely aren't usable on Win 8, and probably won't be usable on Win 10.
I dare you to spend a week on a machine with 1GB of RAM running Windows, and then tell us they're sane minimums. My guess is you'll go crazy before the week runs out.
Sure, it'll load, and you can eventually get a program to launch. But don't expect anything which isn't constantly thrashing and driving you crazy.
My wife's work laptop until recently had 4GB of RAM and Windows 7 on it -- and it was pretty damned slow and awful.
I can only imagine that 1GB of RAM means you want to shove a knitting needle into the face of Steve Ballmer.
I think this described my mother's laptop to a T.
And I can tell you in no uncertain terms, it wasn't enough resources then, and it isn't enough now.
Her laptop runs Vista, and it's so slow as to be almost unusable.
Unless Microsoft has really done some incredible optimizing, a machine with those specs is a frigging joke, and would likely be terrible to use.
Microsoft's minimum specs have been too low since, well, forever actually -- every system I've seen for the last 20+ years which was the "minimum spec" was barely usable.
This is a marketing tactic, not a measure of what will be a useful machine.
Nah, we keep the space-grade maple syrup for domestic consumption.
What you guys get is just corn syrup and food coloring. ;-)
Because they don't give a shit about your security or anybody else's, and they're too stupid to realize that by weakening it for them it weakens it for anybody.
They just want unlimited ability to get any piece of data they want without warrant, oversight, or obstacles.
They want it to be illegal for you to have information they can't readily get.
The scary thing is, they couldn't possibly not know that "what about the children" is a bullshit argument designed to get people to go along with it. Every mother in America says "well, if it's to protect the children, it must be good".
In reality, children and terrorism have become the magic keys to unlock the kingdom, and bypass any pesky laws and constitutional protections.
And anybody who disagrees with them is clearly in favor of kiddy fiddlers and terrorists.
If this kind of thing isn't fixed soon, America is marching into becoming a facist state, while pretending to still be defenders of freedom and justice. And people are applauding this as it goes along.
These guys have decided to go straight for the "it's for the children" argument.
It's a stupid argument. It says that in order to protect hypothetical children from hypothetical threats, all people must give up their rights to make it easier for law enforcement to get information without cause or warrant.
And since you've already had your rights taken away, we will also use this for plenty of other things. Like parallel construction of what we charge you for, and whatever else we can think of to misuse this information for.
Fucking lying assholes and fascists.
America is pretty much screwed at this point, and unfortunately, that is affecting everyone else on the damned planet.
Obama is just as happy to create the surveillance state as Bush was. Audacity of Hope is such a fucking lie.
What, like planetary bling or something?
Sort of. ;-)
The quasi-moons are more moon-like than planet like, because the quasi-moons orbit planets and quasi-planets orbit the sun, so in that regard they're almost entirely different, except for how they're not. =)
If the quasi-moon orbited the sun it would be quasi-planet, but then it's too small, so then it just becomes another piece of space debris with an orbit around the sun. And then it's probably an asteroid. Unless it's a really big asteroid, then it's kind of like a planet. Or possibly a quasi-planet.
It's all very complicated. :-P
2014 OL339 is awkward. It sounds like it needs a proper name.
How about Quasimoondo?
Has the 4th amendment been updated?
Or are you under the illusion that this one amendment is sacrosanct while they crap all over the rest of it?
Because blanket surveillance, property seizure because police lie and say they suspected drugs, and parallel construction are pretty much in violation of your Constitution as well.
Look, you're descending into tyranny now. So, either get on with it, or stop whining about how you'll do it when you get around to it or someone really outlaws jumbo sized soda.
Otherwise, it's just lip service. Your government is already ignoring your Constitution on a large scale, but apparently nobody gives a damn.
Everyone who isn't an American often finds themselves wondering at your fascination with weapons.
Because in the rest of the world, cops and soldiers are the only ones walking around with weapons, and the only places where people walk around with weapons have generally degraded into a fairly lawless state.
Honestly, it seems uncivilized to many of us.
You know, I assumed you were joking about brass knuckles and swords.
Awww, I'm utterly heartbroken, can you tell?
Do you bitch this loudly about when they violate your first amendment, or your fourth amendment, or your fifth amendment? Or anything else? Or is it just guns in particular you worry yourself about?
Your government is shitting all over your rights, as well as those of everyone else on the planet ... and you're on a screed about being able to carry swords and brass knuckles.
So, you'll excuse me if I discount you as yet another American gun nut who feels he should be allowed to own an assault rifle.
Most of your Constitutional amendments are to correct previous bits of stupidity, like not letting women vote. It's a recognition that situations change and that an overly simplistic set of laws doesn't help anybody.
That implies people think about these problems and seek solutions.
But when it comes to the second amendment, it comes down to "Yarg! Our guns!" (or swords, apparently).
Do you somehow find yourself aggrieved by not being able to carry a sword with you? Is it ruining your cyberpunk look or something?
Or are you just looking for things to kvetch about?
I should think there's very little call for walking around with a sword.
I wonder if any appreciates the dichotomy of those two things.
Because, it's not exactly true.
The Cultural revolution wasn't exactly a shining moment. Or the other reason Tiananmen Square is famous. Or many other things that's happened over the last 6 decades.