if you don't have freedom of political expression, you are a slave
it's not about facebook, it's about the right to speak your mind and to choose your government. if you can't choose your government or openly criticize it, yes, you are a slave
that is not disrespectful of the history of slavery, it is an accurate word to use to describe the use of power in despotism: all citizens are slaves. you have no rights. 100% accurate: you are a slave. i am not cheapening the word or disrespecting the history of slavery, i am accurately describing the state of the freedoms and rights of those who live under despotism
Ratvis Bickle: [Ratvis is admiring his crest in the mirror] Huh? Huh? [Flexes] Ratvis Bickle: Faster than you, fucking son of a... Saw you coming you fucking... shitheel. [Crest Stiffens] Ratvis Bickle: I'm standing here; you make the move. You make the move. It's your move... [Lunges] Ratvis Bickle: Don't try it you fuck. [Reflexes] Ratvis Bickle: You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK. [Stabs the wall with his crest]
what part of irresponsibly messing with the public's health do you not get?
yes, it was nice of him to announce his intentions. it shows that he was acting in good faith. but because someone's intentions are pure is not enough. you must also show that you UNDERSTAND what you are doing is dangerous. did he honestly believe messing with radioactivity in a residential apt complex was harmless? if he did believe that, or if he knew it was dangerous, but he didn't care: in either case, arrest him: the man is going to hurt someone innocent
do you think this is adequate defense?: "honest officer, i had no idea playing with radioactivity in my apt complex might be detrimental to my neighbors"
i worry more about the insane things some crackpot might be doing with radioactive elements next door
you have strange priorities, because the regulators were RIGHT to overreact
if regulators got the impression some loony toon was playing with radioactivity in an apartment building, they aren't doing their job if they don't overreact
is this hysteria on my part? false alarmism on my part?
no, it is false complacency on your part to take the concept of some wackjob playing with radioactivity in tight living spaces lightly
and if you resent my use of the words "crackpot", "loony toon" and "wackjob", then you have no sense of responsibility, and judging by radioactive boyscout: swedish edition's sense of responsibility, there are far stronger words ic ould have chosen to use
you don't play with radioactivity in an apartment building. you don't do that. it is highly irresponsible. understand that, or understand nothing. this isn't about freedoms being trounced or overintrusive bureaucracy or the rights of the science minded to explore and build: it is about IRRESPONSIBILITY
this is what polytheism always has been like in human society since day 1. polytheism and hero worship has always been part of human culture
the rise of monotheism, aka spiritual fascism (there is only one god and you must destroy all others!), has not stopped this sort of mythmaking, and never will
there is no bubble. it's the status quo for human culture
friendster was poised to be the facebook of its age. it was wildly popular and growing explosively. i forget the year (2004? 2003?)
then friendster started taking a hard line: no goofy fake name accounts, such accounts were deleted
so people left in droves for a perky startup called myspace
i remember this issue clearly covered in the press, but i can't seem to find any references to such stories to show you what doomed friendster and allowed myspace to take over, apologies
but anyway: learn from history google, or be doomed to repeat it
i actually don't have a problem involving computers in the process: OCR machines for tabulating paper ballots
but the computer should NEVER be the input machine. untrustworthy
do you see how convoluted your scheme above is? how just using paper is easier and cheaper and less complicated?
it's like, out of technophilia, you're just trying to shoehorn the computer in the process. but did you ever stop and ask yourself: why do we even need a computer in the process? maybe a computer in the process makes voting worse, along the lines of trust and hackability?
But the problem with electronic voting is that your hack can happen in seconds, and do far more damage than an army of corrupt vote counters and ballot stuffers and truck drivers who get lost while delivering paper ballots. Plus your attack vectors are orders of magnitude more numerous, because you're dealing with a more complex systems.
Democracy is about trust. Voting should not be a black box: votes in, sausage out. We on Slashdot are all technophiles: anything can be improved with software and electronics, we believe.
But maybe, just maybe, so that the process is transparent, verifiable, and easy to understand, even to the most suspicious and hostile voter: maybe voting should be on paper, forever, in the most advanced nation and the most poor.
logically valid statement: "i am against iran and the usa having nukes, because nukes are the road to hell"
trollish tribal statement: "if the usa has nukes, then the despotism of north korea, the theocracy of iran, and my kid's boy scout troop all deserve nuclear weapon's too"
you are refuting an inference you made into something I explicitly said
but don't worry about it, you're functioning at standard operating parameters for much of the world: extrapolate the most outrageous meaning from someone's words, and react to that instead of someone's actual words
so by all means, carrry on, mr. spastic. try me for grave crimes in high holy indignation and find me evil and guilty. you have a lot of company in this modus operandi. does it soothe your ego?
if there were a group of goths who were into firebombing rich people's malls, they can be infiltrated and defeated
there's lots of environmentalists, i consider myself one, but i'm not into arson to advance the cause. a handful are. they can be infiltrated and defeated
etc., etc.
these examples are the proper parallel to who we're talking about here
so if you're interesting in sounding smart, protip: you don't sound smart if you can't properly define the subject matter before issuing your opinions
Slashdot Mirror
if you don't have freedom of political expression, you are a slave
it's not about facebook, it's about the right to speak your mind and to choose your government. if you can't choose your government or openly criticize it, yes, you are a slave
that is not disrespectful of the history of slavery, it is an accurate word to use to describe the use of power in despotism: all citizens are slaves. you have no rights. 100% accurate: you are a slave. i am not cheapening the word or disrespecting the history of slavery, i am accurately describing the state of the freedoms and rights of those who live under despotism
i'd rather be free and poor than a well-to-do slave
if lego is smart, they'll market copies
A Lego Odyssey
they should have at least thrown in a standard 8x2 thin black piece mounted vertically as a joke
Ratvis Bickle: [Ratvis is admiring his crest in the mirror] Huh? Huh?
[Flexes]
Ratvis Bickle: Faster than you, fucking son of a... Saw you coming you fucking... shitheel.
[Crest Stiffens]
Ratvis Bickle: I'm standing here; you make the move. You make the move. It's your move...
[Lunges]
Ratvis Bickle: Don't try it you fuck.
[Reflexes]
Ratvis Bickle: You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK.
[Stabs the wall with his crest]
so my desktop is usually running opera/ safari/ ie/ firefox/ chrome all the time
does that mean i have multiple personality disorder?
false alarmism is a problem in this world
well, false complacency is too
sure, you go ahead and consider someone messing with radioactivity in an apartment complex no big deal
rock on, you irresponsible troll
may I play with anthrax in my apt complex?"
same thing
arrest that guy too
what part of irresponsibly messing with the public's health do you not get?
yes, it was nice of him to announce his intentions. it shows that he was acting in good faith. but because someone's intentions are pure is not enough. you must also show that you UNDERSTAND what you are doing is dangerous. did he honestly believe messing with radioactivity in a residential apt complex was harmless? if he did believe that, or if he knew it was dangerous, but he didn't care: in either case, arrest him: the man is going to hurt someone innocent
do you think this is adequate defense?: "honest officer, i had no idea playing with radioactivity in my apt complex might be detrimental to my neighbors"
i worry more about the insane things some crackpot might be doing with radioactive elements next door
you have strange priorities, because the regulators were RIGHT to overreact
if regulators got the impression some loony toon was playing with radioactivity in an apartment building, they aren't doing their job if they don't overreact
is this hysteria on my part? false alarmism on my part?
no, it is false complacency on your part to take the concept of some wackjob playing with radioactivity in tight living spaces lightly
and if you resent my use of the words "crackpot", "loony toon" and "wackjob", then you have no sense of responsibility, and judging by radioactive boyscout: swedish edition's sense of responsibility, there are far stronger words ic ould have chosen to use
you don't play with radioactivity in an apartment building. you don't do that. it is highly irresponsible. understand that, or understand nothing. this isn't about freedoms being trounced or overintrusive bureaucracy or the rights of the science minded to explore and build: it is about IRRESPONSIBILITY
you win at geometry
i win at humor
Should I change the password and enable WPA?
Or allow my neighbors in a 12,000 sq mile radius to share my connection?
I like sharing, it seems neighborly.
do you have a life?
(rhetorical question, i know the answer)
this is what polytheism always has been like in human society since day 1. polytheism and hero worship has always been part of human culture
the rise of monotheism, aka spiritual fascism (there is only one god and you must destroy all others!), has not stopped this sort of mythmaking, and never will
there is no bubble. it's the status quo for human culture
friendster was poised to be the facebook of its age. it was wildly popular and growing explosively. i forget the year (2004? 2003?)
then friendster started taking a hard line: no goofy fake name accounts, such accounts were deleted
so people left in droves for a perky startup called myspace
i remember this issue clearly covered in the press, but i can't seem to find any references to such stories to show you what doomed friendster and allowed myspace to take over, apologies
but anyway: learn from history google, or be doomed to repeat it
tactile feel and simplicity do invoke more trust
it's simple human psychology
this is not to mention that paper voting is more trustworthy in point of fact: less vectors for attack, harder to pull off big hacks.
TRUST
if the people don't TRUST the black box, they don't trust the sausage that comes out the other end
if they can't smell, touch, feel, see their vote, they don't TRUST the process, they don't BELIEVE their government is legitimate
do you understand that is a problem?
a far worse problem than the problems you have described?
i actually don't have a problem involving computers in the process: OCR machines for tabulating paper ballots
but the computer should NEVER be the input machine. untrustworthy
do you see how convoluted your scheme above is? how just using paper is easier and cheaper and less complicated?
it's like, out of technophilia, you're just trying to shoehorn the computer in the process. but did you ever stop and ask yourself: why do we even need a computer in the process? maybe a computer in the process makes voting worse, along the lines of trust and hackability?
EXACTLY!
please mod parent up, they framed the problem so much better than i did
But the way their research is summarized makes it sound ridiculous.
Under 10% and an idea will never get traction? Above 10% and it will be accepted by everyone?
This is beyond oversimplification.
You can hack mechanical voting machines
But the problem with electronic voting is that your hack can happen in seconds, and do far more damage than an army of corrupt vote counters and ballot stuffers and truck drivers who get lost while delivering paper ballots. Plus your attack vectors are orders of magnitude more numerous, because you're dealing with a more complex systems.
Democracy is about trust. Voting should not be a black box: votes in, sausage out. We on Slashdot are all technophiles: anything can be improved with software and electronics, we believe.
But maybe, just maybe, so that the process is transparent, verifiable, and easy to understand, even to the most suspicious and hostile voter: maybe voting should be on paper, forever, in the most advanced nation and the most poor.
i am indignant that you are indignant at me being indignant at your indignancy
i shall think about this and come back with some high holy indignation
or not
because who fucking cares, asshole
logically valid statement: "i am against iran and the usa having nukes, because nukes are the road to hell"
trollish tribal statement: "if the usa has nukes, then the despotism of north korea, the theocracy of iran, and my kid's boy scout troop all deserve nuclear weapon's too"
you are refuting an inference you made into something I explicitly said
but don't worry about it, you're functioning at standard operating parameters for much of the world: extrapolate the most outrageous meaning from someone's words, and react to that instead of someone's actual words
so by all means, carrry on, mr. spastic. try me for grave crimes in high holy indignation and find me evil and guilty. you have a lot of company in this modus operandi. does it soothe your ego?
if there were a group of goths who were into firebombing rich people's malls, they can be infiltrated and defeated
there's lots of environmentalists, i consider myself one, but i'm not into arson to advance the cause. a handful are. they can be infiltrated and defeated
etc., etc.
these examples are the proper parallel to who we're talking about here
so if you're interesting in sounding smart, protip: you don't sound smart if you can't properly define the subject matter before issuing your opinions
hey! we were just talking about you:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2347554&cid=36871112