If it inconveniences me in any way, it's a microaggression. Yes. I don't care that my actions inconvenience you, I can't be aggressive, I'm the one being attacked here.
I've actually had someone say almost exactly that when I asked them to move from in front of a doorway so I could enter. I said "excuse me", after waiting 10 seconds (more than reasonable) for them to move so that I and the people lining up behind me could enter, and they suggested somewhere for me to shove my microaggression and suggested I wait patiently while they take a few more selfies with their friends. So I asked them if expecting that they clear the doorway they are blocking so that the (now) group of people waiting for them to do so may enter was the microaggression in this situation, or if the aggression was their suggestion of what I do with my "excuse me". Then, the above was uttered, in all seriousness, with a straight face.
He was lucky I was standing there, the guy behind me looked like he was about to get... to coin a term... macroaggressive.
Perhaps you should have stepped aside for the guy behind you, as it sounds like maybe that's what needs to happen in order for the douche to learn a valuable life lesson.
As far as I am aware, this is an American thing: the failure to comprehend that doorways are shared spaces and therefore, anyone who monopolizes them is being a giant douche. Especially in places everyone goes like grocery stores, it seems like the middle of a narrow doorway is where people like to gather in groups to chat about small-talk bullshit, their obvious attitude being "I'm getting mine, fuck everybody else!" Note, I am American, and I notice that foreigners with obvious accents tend not to engage in this kind of selfish childish behavior. They might have their own set of faults, but a total disregard that other people exist seems not to be one of them.
Whenr I write about OpenDNS (note no space between Open & DNS)? I write it as above, no spaces. When I refer to Open DNS servers used maliciously?? I put in a space.
See when you read books once in a while (rather than making Time Cube-style rants about hosts, hosts, oh yeah and more hosts) you realize certain nuances of the English language. One of those is the fact that "open" is not a proper noun when used that way. As such, it should not be capitalized unless of course you intended to refer to Cisco's Open DNS service, which, being a name, happens to be a proper noun. You're welcome!
I'm sure you do so much better with the stricter nuances of things like programming languages. Hey, at least in the comments you can go crazy with the capital letters as much as you want! That must be such a relief for you. If you aren't too busy posting the same shit over and over again to make sure various users know they've succeeded in getting under your skin, that is. It's okay, I know you must be a busy man with a fulfilling life.
Only if justice matters to you. Dropping bombs, virtual or physical on the most immediate source of the attack will certainly solve the immediate problem.
Will the attackers find another victim to try and use against you, sure probably and likely sooner rather than later but if you haven't got the ability to locate the real source but have the ability to swat down the intermediaries, unwitting though they may be, what should you do?
It would teach the intermediaries the virtue of not going cheap on their IT budgets.
You do realize there is a difference between a DNS server which happens to be open, and the Open DNS service, right? Your usual psychotic capitalization calls into question whether you understand this distinction.
(Psst... this is the point where a normal well-adjusted person would make a clarification, maybe even say something like "my mistake, I should have made that more clear". I know this is too much to expect from you, but that is what respectability would look like.)
Maybe one day it'll be space elevators instead of rockets. Maybe. Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that a space elevator will be better or cheaper than rockets. That largely depends on how expensive it will be to build the elevator, how often it will need maintenance and how long it will ultimately last until you need to scrap it and build a new one.
Or what happens when you use a conductive material like carbon nanotubes to connect the huge positive charge of the ground to the huge negative charge of the ionosphere and many millions of amps flow through it, vaporizing your nanotube, making a pretty plasma, and causing something much worse than ordinary lightning at that site on the ground.
The earth is built like a giant capacitor. Air is a pretty good insulator. Ordinary lightning is what would be called leakage current in any other capacitor. Why this isn't better understood when people bring up space elevators is a fault of the educational system, but it's definitely a major problem that would have to be accounted for in any such plans.
I believe he was describing the way things should work. That does not mean he is ignorant of the way things do work. It comes off as unfounded hostility on your part when you equate the two automatically without something solid to back it up. Welcome to the Internet, right?
No need for any conspiracy since people were warned about potential weaknesses in SHA-1 for a decade.
There's also no need for any conspiracy when staying ahead of such things (with their nearly unlimited resources and no concern for profit) is part of the reason why such agencies exist...
"Decimated nearly half the population" means less than 5%. You can't just ignore the prefix 'deci' because everyone uses it incorrectly, dictionary.
"Decimate" hasn't meant "killed every tenth man by lot" for a lot of years. It's usually not used with exact percentages, but it's often used for percentages other than ten.
It was a tactic used by the Roman military commanders. If the soldiers grossly underperformed, the commander would line them all up and order that every tenth man be beaten to death by the nine men around him. The Romans didn't fuck around.
From the psychological effect this inflicted on the remaining 90%, the word has a connotation of doing severe damage. Personally I might use it to illustrate this kind of meaning, but not in combination with an actual percentage. I would combine it with actual numbers only if I intended to convey the original meaning. That way it's clear whether the word is being used figuratively or literally. The wording of the summary is just sloppy; it's the kind of thing a competent editor would have corrected.
Yes but having government take care of things (as a default position - sometimes that really is best but then there's all the other times...) is endlessly appealing to those who are in denial and therefore still believe that the government is eager to represent their interests in any way.
" In ancient Athens the rich were socially compelled to spend their own fortunes on defending the state, performing rituals, and entertaining the poor. Imagine Soros and the Koch brothers and all the wealthy of either party building and equipping their own aircraft carriers at their own expense as a public benefit."
But the Koch brothers _do_ spend millions on entertaining the poor with funny actors, it's called the Republican Primaries.
Relatively recently, something like this was done in the USA. During the War Between the States (and prior conflicts), much of the artillery used by the military was privately owned. Of course, these were things like cannons and grapeshot, not things like aircraft carriers.
I suspect that your program makes the users' computers into proxy servers, that way you can easily evade the posting limits and spam the hell out of Slashdot. It would explain a lot.
The way you keep following my posts tells me that something I said must have really gotten stuck in your craw, so to speak. Thank you. It's good to know that I've been effective. You can expect more of the same the next time it's at least a little on-topic. Oh, and now anyone who is interested can figure out how they, too, can drive you crazy.
I'm not exactly sure what your objection is to what I said, other than implying I'm some kind of elitist.
The obesity statistics are easily found and show that most Americans are indeed fat (particularly, check the morbid obesity rate). The effectiveness of advertising on the general population is well documented. That the public school system does not teach students how to recognize propaganda techniques (such as the bandwagon appeal, debate framing, lying by omission, the attachment of emotional imagery to what should be factual content, etc) is easy to verify. That the antics of the Kardashians and others like them routinely receive mainstream news coverage is easy to verity; so is the motive - it sells.
Since you would be unable to disagree with my assessment on any sort of factual basis, you are instead implying that I'm some sort of bad person. This is a very weak argument. Nowhere did I say everyone else should be like anything (although I did imply that people should get their shit together and think for themselves by learning how to reject bought-and-paid-for information). You also mention "hatred", which is odd considering that I stuck to easily verified factual observations. I didn't attach this kind of intense emotional feeling to anything I said. Also, Fox News is like most mainstream media outlets: they are capitalizing on the way most people have become and they simply appeal to a particular flavor of it.
I think I should come up with a name for what you're doing. It's like a form of loser's anger. You don't like what I said but you realize you cannot refute it. Personally, whenever I am in that situation, I adjust my worldview until it's consistent with the facts of the matter. My feelings about them are irrelevant - facts are facts and only by acknowledging them can I deal with them properly. But that takes a kind of courage you don't appear to have. So fueled by this disdain of yours, you must find some way to unfavorably characterize the speaker rather than deal with what was spoken.
This is what petty, small-minded people tend to do. They must make everything personal. Aren't you capable of better than this?
What's funny (sad, actually) is that there are so many people in favor of disarming the populace. I'm too tired to get into it so let it suffice to say that I simply can not comprehend the thinking process that leads otherwise rational people to reach conclusions such as those.
It's not a thinking process. It's fear. It doesn't help that when a citizen with a legal gun stops a crime, the media says something like "the suspect was subdued until police arrived" (and only that), but when a nutjob goes apeshit and shoots random people they put every gory detail on the front page for days or weeks. If the average person is a moron it's because they don't consider the tremendous incentive the media has to manipulate what they will and won't show, the great power (unelected, unchecked) represented by the ability to do this.
The exact opposite of a thinking process reinforced by numbers of the like-minded parroting each other is where this idea comes from. They seem not to notice that mass shootings overwhelmingly tend to happen in "gun free zones".
They are CELLPHONE CARRIERS. They can't talk to each other?
They are businesses competing in the same market, a market that has extremely high barriers to entry. In this market they have little incentive to undercut each other or otherwise actually compete. That was the point. I wasn't commenting one way or the other about their ability to send and receive communications. Perhaps you could obtain some remedial reading comprehension tutoring?
Spending money is one thing. Giving money to corporations in return for vague promises of jobs is entirely another.
Amen. If it's really a matter of some kind of consideration, like "do this for us and we'll make this concession to you", that's precisely the sort of situation for which the concept of written contracts exists.
Extreme conservatives are just as bad as extreme liberals, yes. Though members of either extreme are incapable of seeing their own evil.
The two-party system has a consequence of muffling the voices of moderates. This is by design; it keeps people screaming at each other about particulars while they continue to give power (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum) to sociopaths who use it only to benefit themselves.
Times are dark, but life goes on.
That system also muffles the voices of people who don't buy the underlying premise of that system. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are the Yin and Yang of an unstated assumption: that people ought to be led, controlled, and governed and the only question is precisely what our priorities should be when we go about it. Philosophies like (small-'l' libertarianism) which believed that people should not be led, controlled, or governed except to the degree necessary to have human rights, rule of law, and sensible (defensible) regulations but no more than that.
Liberal and Conservative, Left and Right are the only thought-forms that are recognized in any sort of mainstream sense today. So we end up with a system with a ridiculous tax code in which consenting adults are ever told what they may and may not do with their own lives on their own property while being told that divisions like skin color, income level, gender, and religion are important and that a middleman is needed to protect each from the others.
As you said, it should have been obvious to everyone a long time ago, but it wasn't and isn't because not everybody thinks like you or I do. Conservatives are at least able to understand and recognize what motivates liberal positions, even if they don't agree with them, but many liberals seem to be quite incapable of properly understanding or ascribing conservative motives for policy preferences, particularly as they relate to authority/respect or purity/sanctity. The result is often ridiculous conspiracy theories, false dichotomies, or silly accusations of "mean spiritedness" against conservatives as liberals struggle and ultimately fail to understand why somebody could possibly disagree with them without being an idiot or a psychopath.
Sure, in the same way that a small child might think the parent is "being mean" by not letting them eat candy or ice cream for dinner. This does make a lot of sense, if you accept the liberal/conservative spectrum model. Of course a spectrum is represented by a line because it is literally one-dimensional thinking.
What doesn't make sense is to accept this liberal/conservative left/right false dichotomy as though it were determined by reality. It's not. It's determined by suggestion and some very skillful debate framing. The Democrat/Republican duopoly is to politics what the trade guilds of old were to commerce. It exists for the purpose of raising the barriers to entry for new players. Only instead of money alone, now the prize is both money (and access to money) and power. Sharing power and knowing that you and your people will always maintain a piece of it is preferable to getting too greedy, losing your power entirely, and becoming irrelevant.
It was for similar reasons that (in my opinion) all the major cellphone carriers in the US all overcharged for texting, even when the carrier bore no additional cost to provide it (i.e. GSM). They made the smart business decision. They each independently realized that trying to undercut each other would mean that everyone has very thin margins, and that each one of them should continue to overcharge because it's "what the market will bear", and all of them are individually better off not being the one to rock the boat. This requires no outright conspiracy among them, just a shrewd and ruthless business sense that thinks about the long-term. This same corporate culture is why these companies are major players to begin with, right or wrong.
If anything, the people trying to get power have better advisors and PR than the people trying to make money.
We should maybe aspire to something greater than a 3000 year old model?
Sadly, most people think the big government they keep voting for is there to help them, not to help those who buy the politicians they vote for. With enemies like the left, the 1% don't need friends.
The average person cannot be fat, stupid, oblivious, trusting of advertising (and paid studies and other obviously biased sources), saturated in meaningless tabloid bullshit, and view non-job-related thought as tedium to be avoided or offloaded... and then expect to have a truly representative government. It's never happened before and it's not happening today.
You may be surprised at how effective 3000 year old tactics still are. Bread-and-circus has many forms and it's at least that old. Oh yeah, speaking of the Roman empire? One of the major souces of corruption involved their equivalent of defense contracts. They had their own version of the military-industrial complex.
You would put UV sterilizers into the cooling water systems, not just into the water supply in general. Cooling tower water is pumped in a circle. Add in a sterilizer. Problem solved, maybe? Or maybe not. So the question still stands. Does UV work on this stuff?
It's the most common way of being a douchebag - never considering "that must not be what he meant since it obviously wouldn't work". A douchebag prefers to think "hah he sure is a moron, even though there's multiple ways to interpret what he meant and at least one of those makes sense!"
It's gratifying to know I'm so important to you that you would waste precious time out of your mortal life looking for my posts like this. Like Bugs Bunny says, "I didn't know you cared".
Incidentally, disagreeing with you and stating my reasons for disagreement is not generally called "trolling". It's better known as "having a discussion". If disagreement with you is automatically trolling then you're clearly a deeply insecure human being. I got some bad news for you, Sunshine: there are well over 7 billion people in the world and many of them will not agree with you. It's one of those facts of life. Retreat back to your echo chamber if it comforts you.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is one profoundly limiting factor for all digital processing, but we're a few "Moore's law" generations away from that one.
If we somehow get around that by inventing some new understanding of physics not yet envisioned, we may as well make Star Trek type transporter devices while we're at it.
Slashdot Mirror
If it inconveniences me in any way, it's a microaggression. Yes. I don't care that my actions inconvenience you, I can't be aggressive, I'm the one being attacked here. I've actually had someone say almost exactly that when I asked them to move from in front of a doorway so I could enter. I said "excuse me", after waiting 10 seconds (more than reasonable) for them to move so that I and the people lining up behind me could enter, and they suggested somewhere for me to shove my microaggression and suggested I wait patiently while they take a few more selfies with their friends. So I asked them if expecting that they clear the doorway they are blocking so that the (now) group of people waiting for them to do so may enter was the microaggression in this situation, or if the aggression was their suggestion of what I do with my "excuse me". Then, the above was uttered, in all seriousness, with a straight face. He was lucky I was standing there, the guy behind me looked like he was about to get... to coin a term... macroaggressive.
Perhaps you should have stepped aside for the guy behind you, as it sounds like maybe that's what needs to happen in order for the douche to learn a valuable life lesson.
As far as I am aware, this is an American thing: the failure to comprehend that doorways are shared spaces and therefore, anyone who monopolizes them is being a giant douche. Especially in places everyone goes like grocery stores, it seems like the middle of a narrow doorway is where people like to gather in groups to chat about small-talk bullshit, their obvious attitude being "I'm getting mine, fuck everybody else!" Note, I am American, and I notice that foreigners with obvious accents tend not to engage in this kind of selfish childish behavior. They might have their own set of faults, but a total disregard that other people exist seems not to be one of them.
Whenr I write about OpenDNS (note no space between Open & DNS)? I write it as above, no spaces. When I refer to Open DNS servers used maliciously?? I put in a space.
* Got that, you pitiful little fuck? Good...
APK
P.S.=> Keep "running" there, 'Forrest' -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ... apk
See when you read books once in a while (rather than making Time Cube-style rants about hosts, hosts, oh yeah and more hosts) you realize certain nuances of the English language. One of those is the fact that "open" is not a proper noun when used that way. As such, it should not be capitalized unless of course you intended to refer to Cisco's Open DNS service, which, being a name, happens to be a proper noun. You're welcome!
I'm sure you do so much better with the stricter nuances of things like programming languages. Hey, at least in the comments you can go crazy with the capital letters as much as you want! That must be such a relief for you. If you aren't too busy posting the same shit over and over again to make sure various users know they've succeeded in getting under your skin, that is. It's okay, I know you must be a busy man with a fulfilling life.
When you have the capability to drop bombs.
Only if justice matters to you. Dropping bombs, virtual or physical on the most immediate source of the attack will certainly solve the immediate problem.
Will the attackers find another victim to try and use against you, sure probably and likely sooner rather than later but if you haven't got the ability to locate the real source but have the ability to swat down the intermediaries, unwitting though they may be, what should you do?
It would teach the intermediaries the virtue of not going cheap on their IT budgets.
You do realize there is a difference between a DNS server which happens to be open, and the Open DNS service, right? Your usual psychotic capitalization calls into question whether you understand this distinction.
(Psst... this is the point where a normal well-adjusted person would make a clarification, maybe even say something like "my mistake, I should have made that more clear". I know this is too much to expect from you, but that is what respectability would look like.)
Maybe one day it'll be space elevators instead of rockets. Maybe. Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that a space elevator will be better or cheaper than rockets. That largely depends on how expensive it will be to build the elevator, how often it will need maintenance and how long it will ultimately last until you need to scrap it and build a new one.
Or what happens when you use a conductive material like carbon nanotubes to connect the huge positive charge of the ground to the huge negative charge of the ionosphere and many millions of amps flow through it, vaporizing your nanotube, making a pretty plasma, and causing something much worse than ordinary lightning at that site on the ground.
The earth is built like a giant capacitor. Air is a pretty good insulator. Ordinary lightning is what would be called leakage current in any other capacitor. Why this isn't better understood when people bring up space elevators is a fault of the educational system, but it's definitely a major problem that would have to be accounted for in any such plans.
You just can't stand that not everyone values your dinky little hosts program. How amusing!
Maybe a class in logic and critical thing would be a better mandatory class than programing.
There are far too many well-funded corporate Marketing departments who do not want this to happen and will fight it at all costs.
I believe he was describing the way things should work. That does not mean he is ignorant of the way things do work. It comes off as unfounded hostility on your part when you equate the two automatically without something solid to back it up. Welcome to the Internet, right?
Not really. People at Microsoft Research showed it to be broken years before it became a scandal. No one bothered to listen.
This is one major reason I prefer full public disclosure with functioning reference exploits. Those seem much harder to ignore.
People have been attacking SHA-1 since 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No need for any conspiracy since people were warned about potential weaknesses in SHA-1 for a decade.
There's also no need for any conspiracy when staying ahead of such things (with their nearly unlimited resources and no concern for profit) is part of the reason why such agencies exist...
"Decimated nearly half the population" means less than 5%. You can't just ignore the prefix 'deci' because everyone uses it incorrectly, dictionary.
"Decimate" hasn't meant "killed every tenth man by lot" for a lot of years. It's usually not used with exact percentages, but it's often used for percentages other than ten.
It was a tactic used by the Roman military commanders. If the soldiers grossly underperformed, the commander would line them all up and order that every tenth man be beaten to death by the nine men around him. The Romans didn't fuck around.
From the psychological effect this inflicted on the remaining 90%, the word has a connotation of doing severe damage. Personally I might use it to illustrate this kind of meaning, but not in combination with an actual percentage. I would combine it with actual numbers only if I intended to convey the original meaning. That way it's clear whether the word is being used figuratively or literally. The wording of the summary is just sloppy; it's the kind of thing a competent editor would have corrected.
Yes but having government take care of things (as a default position - sometimes that really is best but then there's all the other times...) is endlessly appealing to those who are in denial and therefore still believe that the government is eager to represent their interests in any way.
" In ancient Athens the rich were socially compelled to spend their own fortunes on defending the state, performing rituals, and entertaining the poor. Imagine Soros and the Koch brothers and all the wealthy of either party building and equipping their own aircraft carriers at their own expense as a public benefit."
But the Koch brothers _do_ spend millions on entertaining the poor with funny actors, it's called the Republican Primaries.
Relatively recently, something like this was done in the USA. During the War Between the States (and prior conflicts), much of the artillery used by the military was privately owned. Of course, these were things like cannons and grapeshot, not things like aircraft carriers.
I suspect that your program makes the users' computers into proxy servers, that way you can easily evade the posting limits and spam the hell out of Slashdot. It would explain a lot.
The way you keep following my posts tells me that something I said must have really gotten stuck in your craw, so to speak. Thank you. It's good to know that I've been effective. You can expect more of the same the next time it's at least a little on-topic. Oh, and now anyone who is interested can figure out how they, too, can drive you crazy.
I'm not exactly sure what your objection is to what I said, other than implying I'm some kind of elitist.
The obesity statistics are easily found and show that most Americans are indeed fat (particularly, check the morbid obesity rate). The effectiveness of advertising on the general population is well documented. That the public school system does not teach students how to recognize propaganda techniques (such as the bandwagon appeal, debate framing, lying by omission, the attachment of emotional imagery to what should be factual content, etc) is easy to verify. That the antics of the Kardashians and others like them routinely receive mainstream news coverage is easy to verity; so is the motive - it sells.
Since you would be unable to disagree with my assessment on any sort of factual basis, you are instead implying that I'm some sort of bad person. This is a very weak argument. Nowhere did I say everyone else should be like anything (although I did imply that people should get their shit together and think for themselves by learning how to reject bought-and-paid-for information). You also mention "hatred", which is odd considering that I stuck to easily verified factual observations. I didn't attach this kind of intense emotional feeling to anything I said. Also, Fox News is like most mainstream media outlets: they are capitalizing on the way most people have become and they simply appeal to a particular flavor of it.
I think I should come up with a name for what you're doing. It's like a form of loser's anger. You don't like what I said but you realize you cannot refute it. Personally, whenever I am in that situation, I adjust my worldview until it's consistent with the facts of the matter. My feelings about them are irrelevant - facts are facts and only by acknowledging them can I deal with them properly. But that takes a kind of courage you don't appear to have. So fueled by this disdain of yours, you must find some way to unfavorably characterize the speaker rather than deal with what was spoken.
This is what petty, small-minded people tend to do. They must make everything personal. Aren't you capable of better than this?
What's funny (sad, actually) is that there are so many people in favor of disarming the populace. I'm too tired to get into it so let it suffice to say that I simply can not comprehend the thinking process that leads otherwise rational people to reach conclusions such as those.
It's not a thinking process. It's fear. It doesn't help that when a citizen with a legal gun stops a crime, the media says something like "the suspect was subdued until police arrived" (and only that), but when a nutjob goes apeshit and shoots random people they put every gory detail on the front page for days or weeks. If the average person is a moron it's because they don't consider the tremendous incentive the media has to manipulate what they will and won't show, the great power (unelected, unchecked) represented by the ability to do this.
The exact opposite of a thinking process reinforced by numbers of the like-minded parroting each other is where this idea comes from. They seem not to notice that mass shootings overwhelmingly tend to happen in "gun free zones".
They are CELLPHONE CARRIERS. They can't talk to each other?
They are businesses competing in the same market, a market that has extremely high barriers to entry. In this market they have little incentive to undercut each other or otherwise actually compete. That was the point. I wasn't commenting one way or the other about their ability to send and receive communications. Perhaps you could obtain some remedial reading comprehension tutoring?
Spending money is one thing. Giving money to corporations in return for vague promises of jobs is entirely another.
Amen. If it's really a matter of some kind of consideration, like "do this for us and we'll make this concession to you", that's precisely the sort of situation for which the concept of written contracts exists.
Extreme conservatives are just as bad as extreme liberals, yes. Though members of either extreme are incapable of seeing their own evil.
The two-party system has a consequence of muffling the voices of moderates. This is by design; it keeps people screaming at each other about particulars while they continue to give power (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum) to sociopaths who use it only to benefit themselves.
Times are dark, but life goes on.
That system also muffles the voices of people who don't buy the underlying premise of that system. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are the Yin and Yang of an unstated assumption: that people ought to be led, controlled, and governed and the only question is precisely what our priorities should be when we go about it. Philosophies like (small-'l' libertarianism) which believed that people should not be led, controlled, or governed except to the degree necessary to have human rights, rule of law, and sensible (defensible) regulations but no more than that.
Liberal and Conservative, Left and Right are the only thought-forms that are recognized in any sort of mainstream sense today. So we end up with a system with a ridiculous tax code in which consenting adults are ever told what they may and may not do with their own lives on their own property while being told that divisions like skin color, income level, gender, and religion are important and that a middleman is needed to protect each from the others.
As you said, it should have been obvious to everyone a long time ago, but it wasn't and isn't because not everybody thinks like you or I do. Conservatives are at least able to understand and recognize what motivates liberal positions, even if they don't agree with them, but many liberals seem to be quite incapable of properly understanding or ascribing conservative motives for policy preferences, particularly as they relate to authority/respect or purity/sanctity. The result is often ridiculous conspiracy theories, false dichotomies, or silly accusations of "mean spiritedness" against conservatives as liberals struggle and ultimately fail to understand why somebody could possibly disagree with them without being an idiot or a psychopath.
Sure, in the same way that a small child might think the parent is "being mean" by not letting them eat candy or ice cream for dinner. This does make a lot of sense, if you accept the liberal/conservative spectrum model. Of course a spectrum is represented by a line because it is literally one-dimensional thinking.
What doesn't make sense is to accept this liberal/conservative left/right false dichotomy as though it were determined by reality. It's not. It's determined by suggestion and some very skillful debate framing. The Democrat/Republican duopoly is to politics what the trade guilds of old were to commerce. It exists for the purpose of raising the barriers to entry for new players. Only instead of money alone, now the prize is both money (and access to money) and power. Sharing power and knowing that you and your people will always maintain a piece of it is preferable to getting too greedy, losing your power entirely, and becoming irrelevant.
It was for similar reasons that (in my opinion) all the major cellphone carriers in the US all overcharged for texting, even when the carrier bore no additional cost to provide it (i.e. GSM). They made the smart business decision. They each independently realized that trying to undercut each other would mean that everyone has very thin margins, and that each one of them should continue to overcharge because it's "what the market will bear", and all of them are individually better off not being the one to rock the boat. This requires no outright conspiracy among them, just a shrewd and ruthless business sense that thinks about the long-term. This same corporate culture is why these companies are major players to begin with, right or wrong.
If anything, the people trying to get power have better advisors and PR than the people trying to make money.
According to the Massachusetts State Police they are a private mercenary army that isn't responsible to the people of MA..so maybe.
Considering that they derive their police powers from being part of the state, wouldn't that stance make them a criminal organization?
We should maybe aspire to something greater than a 3000 year old model?
Sadly, most people think the big government they keep voting for is there to help them, not to help those who buy the politicians they vote for. With enemies like the left, the 1% don't need friends.
The average person cannot be fat, stupid, oblivious, trusting of advertising (and paid studies and other obviously biased sources), saturated in meaningless tabloid bullshit, and view non-job-related thought as tedium to be avoided or offloaded ... and then expect to have a truly representative government. It's never happened before and it's not happening today.
You may be surprised at how effective 3000 year old tactics still are. Bread-and-circus has many forms and it's at least that old. Oh yeah, speaking of the Roman empire? One of the major souces of corruption involved their equivalent of defense contracts. They had their own version of the military-industrial complex.
You would put UV sterilizers into the cooling water systems, not just into the water supply in general. Cooling tower water is pumped in a circle. Add in a sterilizer. Problem solved, maybe? Or maybe not. So the question still stands. Does UV work on this stuff?
It's the most common way of being a douchebag - never considering "that must not be what he meant since it obviously wouldn't work". A douchebag prefers to think "hah he sure is a moron, even though there's multiple ways to interpret what he meant and at least one of those makes sense!"
It's gratifying to know I'm so important to you that you would waste precious time out of your mortal life looking for my posts like this. Like Bugs Bunny says, "I didn't know you cared".
Incidentally, disagreeing with you and stating my reasons for disagreement is not generally called "trolling". It's better known as "having a discussion". If disagreement with you is automatically trolling then you're clearly a deeply insecure human being. I got some bad news for you, Sunshine: there are well over 7 billion people in the world and many of them will not agree with you. It's one of those facts of life. Retreat back to your echo chamber if it comforts you.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is one profoundly limiting factor for all digital processing, but we're a few "Moore's law" generations away from that one.
If we somehow get around that by inventing some new understanding of physics not yet envisioned, we may as well make Star Trek type transporter devices while we're at it.