the usa should not have nuclear weapons. no nation should
so you should be spending your time pestering those with nukes to get rid of them. not condoning even more nations getting them!
its like "my neighbor has a meth lab. i won't try to get my neighbor to get rid of the meth lab. instead, i will simply support my other neighbor getting his own meth lab, so that its fair"
seriously?
and yet that is some people's reasoning on why nuclear proliferation is ok. its insane
the more nukes around the more chance for something bad to happen
yes, that the usa has nukes, but venezuela doesn't can be seen as hypocritical if you want
so, if you honestly believe the world is a better place with equanimity, you should be working very hard for the usa to get rid of its nuclear arsenal. and you should be happy venezuela was denied, and not in any way do you think the world is a better place if both countries have nukes
to me it seems that confusing popularity with quality is less problematic than confusing your own opinion or the opinion of your clique with quality (THAT is sophistry). and yes, i will agree with you that $ from a film is not a completely accurate translation for what quality is. it is however, the most OBJECTIVE translation we have. box office success is therefore the only valid way we have to measure quality, as imperfect as it is
what i am saying is that for all the problems you can point out with simple box office returns=quality, every other method for judging quality is worse. and so box office returns is not perfect, but its the most valid of all the ways you can try to judge quality
i stopped reading here. could you please, OBJECTIVELY, substantiate how the story sucked
i am going to say the story is fantastic. i am going to OBJECTIVELY substantiate that claim by pointing at the box office returns
if you find some other OBJECTIVE way to gauge quality in a film, do get back to me. until then, you're just a mindlessly negative asshole, who criticizes without merit, like the other guy i'm responding to
cameron, because he is a science geek, injects the genuinely science-minded idea of shape memory alloy prominently into the plot of a wildly successful piece of pop movie making. no one but a genuine science geek would do this
but this is not good enough for you. he also has to abide by the rigid rules of physics
which is why you are not fit to judge cameron. nor ST:TOS. nor any piece of entertainment. because the point is to ENTERTAIN, not accurately describe how you turn a shape memory alloy into an evil robot!
and ST:TOS is about sexy green alien chicks you can flirt with and seduce and a guy who can grab your shoulder and make you fall down. its obviously complete bs. at the same time, its wildly entertaining. so if you are going to sit there and pick apart why it isn't real or physically plausible, you're merely undertaking a giant exercise in pointing out the fucking obvious that everyone already understands. you honestly believe a lack rigid adherence to scientific and technical accuracies is some sort of revelation of yours? you honeslty believe pointing out that science fiction on movies and tv is not possible? what part of "fucking obvious" do you not understand?
"Cameron's not a science geek, he's a science fanboy."
no: cameron is a science geek and an entertaining film maker. you are a science geek who doesn't even know what entertainment means
"he can't or won't apply the necessary rigor to apply them sanely"
NO ONE is going to do that, or has ever done that, EVER. because to do that, you are making a sleep-inducing technical training film, not a piece of entertainment
because while i was editting it, i watched it, and it sucked. no one else saw it except me. i am my own worst critic. maybe if i let other people watch it, they might say its not all that bad. but i'm not ready for that. someday. maybe you can be the first to see it. i'm sure you will give it the care and fair appraisal you are obviously so full of (rolls eyes)
i am not bitter about the experience. i tried to make a movie. it didn't go very well. oh well. all you can ask out of life is to try: it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. how about yourself? have you ever tried to do something with your life? or are you afraid and scared in your basement, and find solace for doing nothing at all by picking apart people who actually do do something with their lives... the career of one of the most successful people in hollywood history, for example. pfffft
"I'm just saying, being a failed artist is probably why you hate critics."
there's nothing wrong with criticism. for example: i think the basis on which you judge cameron is baseless and lame. see? that's called criticism. can you handle it?
"People like you, on the other hand, just want the kind of blind adoration you will never, ever get."
projecting much? you wear your psychology on your sleeve friend. i do not need or want blind adoration. but ultranegative criticism of others, especially successful people, speaks of narcissism. you are not a critic. you are mindlessly negative narcissistic nobody. your criticism of one of the most successful men in hollywood offends me because it is completely without merit. you are completely without merit, and you think you have merit, merely because you criticize. no, this merely means you don't know how to do anything else except egotize your relationship with the world: "this man's successful offends me, because i am not successful. so i must tear him down"
there is only one OBJECTIVE determinant of quality: box office business. everything else is subjective and therefore flawed
therefore, based on the only objective measure of quality we have available, james cameron is a quality film maker. this is an objective fact
money coming in=quality. you disagree with this definition? ok. show me another OBJECTIVE measure of quality and you will prove me wrong. can't do it. sorry
to imagine that you somehow speak for what quality film is, based on nothing but your own delusions of importance, is a commentary on your own psychological defects, and nothing more
ghosts of the abyss, aliens of the deep... now avatar ii
frankly, james cameron is a deep sea diving enthusiast who made the mistake of having a career as a successful movie maker
its almost like he chooses his movies just so he can play with deep sea diving equipment. and the whole "making massive amounts of money with extremely successful pop movies" is an afterthought to his real passion in life. bizarre
trashing the career of one of the most successful directors in hollywood
(rolls eyes)
frankly, your post is nothing more than jealousy. you stand on a soap box of imagined authority to pass judgment on the man based on nothing but empty spite
you're just sour grapes. maybe it makes you feel better about your own failure to trash successful people, but the idea of losers pulling down others to their level is a social phenomenon as old as loser teenagers being angry at their peers who try to better themselves
i mean shape memory alloy turned into a villain in t2? or superconducting islands of rock in the air? the man is a true science geek in the vein of anyone else writing here on slashdot
so if anyone is going to get this thing built, with the money cameron has, he's going to do it, because he most certainly understands all of the objections you raised in your post. he is also diving fanatic, he got cameras to the titanic site, his technical and science acumen is outstanding
a science geek and an extremely successful movie director. frankly, cameron makes me completely jealous
but technical intelligence is not the same as social intelligence
it takes a lot of technical intelligence to create an altitude sensitive bomb from scratch
it take only an average amount of social intelligence to understand a carrot works more than a stick
this is not to say social intelligence and technical intelligence are the only types of intelligence, nor that they are contrasting types. there are people who are both socially and technically intelligent, only socially intelligent, only technically intelligent, and some who are bereft of both intelligences
but for those without much social intelligence, who can't express themselves socially, but can express themselves technically, then throwing a temper tantrum (which is what terrorism is, emotionally) with a bomb might make sense
some people just don't have much experience with social situations to understand there are much better avenues to express themselves. so they blow shit up or shoot people
additionally, some people have a horrible poverty of the soul, never mind a low social iq: besides intelligence, there is also the measure of somone's empathy: affinity with other human beings. no matter what your social or political frustration, the willingness to hurt another human being for selfish reasons belies a horrible lack of basic human empathy
even someone completely bereft of any form of intelligence understand hurting someone else is wrong. to be devoid of that basic empathy is a special form of hell, and, for lack of a better word, is simply evil
1. speeding things up and destroying the perception of trust in the voting process 2. slowing things down, but garnering trust amongst the voters
i would rather the vote take 3 months myself. because i think i have my priorities in order a hell of a lot better than you do
"I know for a fact that the first Obamite that got in my face would be bruised. And a lot of those people can't help but getting in your face, it is who they are."
well you know, the tea party has a reputation as a bunch of angry hysterical thugs. which is a shame because there are genuine grievances in what they stand for. unfortunately, words like yours simply means the thuggishness is real with threats of physical force. so even though i'm not a tea party fan and am glad to see their name and character besmirched by the likes of you from the inside, i'll still say a big "fuck you" to you for helping to destroy the civility of the political landscape in this country by being a testosterone-addled asshole
furthermore, for the sake of argument, i grant you complete acknowledgment of every concern you have just raised with the gore-bush florida fiasco of 2000...
and electronic voting is STILL worse and more delegitimizing for democracy. really
think about it: with a black box electronic voting process, voted go in, legislator sausage comes out. what happens in between?
at least with a hanging chad, you can look at the damn hanging chad and try to interpret intent. bt with electronic voting no one really knows what happens inside except some government bureaucrats who aren't paid enough. and we're supposed to trust that? really?
paper now. paper forever: you can TRUST paper. without trust in the voting process, there is no democracy. and electronic voting is inherently opaque, unnecessarily complex thereby exposing myriad of attack vectors, and therefore essentially untrustworthy
the only way you are not an idiot is if you work for an electronic voting machine manufacturer and are therefore hopefully compromised
look, it's very simple: the more complicated a machine or a process, the more the attack vectors. understand that, or understand nothing
take a ballot box stuffed with papers. list the ways you can manipulate it
take a mechanical voting machine. list the ways you can manipulate it
take an electronic voting machine. list the ways you can attack it
if there are 10 good ways to attack the paper ballots, there are 100 good ways to attack mechanical voting machines, and there are 1,000 good ways to attack the electronic voting machines. understand? more complicated = more attack vectors. its that simple, really. and voting just isn't that complicated a process that improves if unnecessarily mechanized for some reason
in some arenas of life, such as voting in a democracy, technophilicity, loving and embracing new technology, is not a merit, its a danger. that really is the truth
if the people view their voting process as a black box they don't understand and don't trust, this will color the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the people. its that simple. show me all of the encryption and verification processes you want. its gobblity gook. show me a paper ballot. i can touch, feel it, trust it. this is the only way a democracy should ever function, 200 years ago or 200 years in the future: paper. end of debate
there is trusting too much in this world: a sort of gullibility to someone because you look too much at certain shallow easily manipulated signifiers of what a trustworthy person should be (like: wear a suit)
then there is genuine trust or genuine distrust coming from someone with a competent intelligence: a wise wariness, an awareness of what you lack in knowledge of a person, an emphasis on looking at what they say and what they have done in the past: sound judgment leading to an appropriate trust level
then there is this sort of pathological distrust, the mirror image of gullibility. where even those who are good people are cast in doubt, due to blanket statements about things you don't know, prejudice, mindless negativity, and a dim perceptive ability. all of which are on display in your comment above
there are people in this world who trust too easily, and there are people who trust too hard. both of which being character failures due to psychological imbalance and/ or intelligence defect. you are such a person
with the fill in the oval, scan it system. it worked ok. at least it has a paper trail, and that's all you can ask for
it is superior in that respect to the mechanical voting machines they replaced: mechanical black box has less attack vectors that electronic black box, yes, but mechanical black box has more attack vectors than paper trail. yes, you can cheat in any voting system, but a massive conspiracy of ballot stuffers, drivers losing boxes of ballots, etc.: this can be replaced with a much smaller group of well-placed corrupt bureaucrats to manipulate mechanical voting, and with electronic, one well-placed hacker and a few milliseconds can alter the vote in ways that even statistical analysis can't reveal the manipulations
the lesson being: if your voting system is a black box: votes in, elected representative sausage out, people won't trust the vote. they need something tangible, something they can trust and understand, in their hands, which only a paper ballot is. the most advanced technophilic society 100 years form now should still be using paper, for the sake of legitimacy of the government in the eyes of its people
it's just too easy to hack a machine, and once you place doubt in the legitimacy of your elected officials, democracy itself is in trouble. we have enough angry idiots running around the usa today in the form of the tea party mumbling about "secret muslims." all we need is even the slightest perception of election machine untrustability, and the social unrest will be considerable. the reality or lack thereof of genuine hacking events isn't even the issue: PERCEPTION is the issue. enough people don't have faith in their government as it is, don't give them more reason to spin their paranoid schizophrenic fantasies and rabble rousing hysteria. because they will do it. and idiots will believe it
if you shoot the man, another merely fills his place. you've also turned murdoch into a martyr. fucking wonderful
the idea is to discredit the activity, not the man himself: rupert murdochs are a dime a dozen. so are loser internet tough guys talking about assassination and revolution
let's put it as clearly as a moron like yourself can understand it: as evil as rupert murdoch is, for what you just wrote, you are far worse
we want to discredit the ideology murdoch engages in. not adapt a thuggish mafia ideology far worse than murdoch's. you don't beat murdoch by being even more evil than him. got it you fucking retard?
go overcompensate for having a small penis some other way, you slimy piece of shit
has successfully repackaged propaganda as news, and has done untold damage to the civil discourse in half a dozen nations
why is this guy allowed to continue publishing under the guise of being a news source?
of course you shouldn't stop publishing him, its free speech. and of course the retards who unquestioningly trust this filth (obama is a "secret muslim!") share the blame
but doesn't society have a duty to clearly delineate fact from fiction? to, for example, insist that what this man publishes is "for entertainment value only, not to be confused with news"
the man is damaging western civilization by driving the topic of mass conversation into the area of political spin and smearmongering. surely we have a duty to insist that what is presented as news be news. otherwise, this man is assembling the riff raff into an angry stupid propagandized fountain of ill will eating at society
label the shit this man publishes, mark it clearly as fiction. let him have his corporate agenda-funded propaganda, its free speech. but i don't want to pay this cognitive tax on the stupid when it comes to civil discourse in my country any more
immorality is simply transgressing against another person. there's nothing beautiful about rape or theft or any other nuance of immorality. what the hell is your problem?
ron howard: apollo 13, a beautiful mind, the davinci code
akiva goldsman: lost in space, batman & robin, i robot
eh
they are excellent filmmakers and producers and writers with a spectacular run of success with solid well-done pop fare and are well-regarded and appreciated
but they have strolled into psychedelic territory here
a story like the dark tower needs a stanley kubrick, a david lynch, a martin scorsese, maybe even a tim burton: a master of the theatre of the macabre and absurd
not these middlebrow crowd pleasing hollywood mainstream guys
for something like the dark tower, we want week old road kill roasted over an oil drum fire by a paranoid schizophrenic hobo. we don't want olive garden
anyone with a conscience in this world has to offer up a pound of flesh for the actions of those without a conscience
i'm not saying this is justifiable, i am just saying it is inevitable
and i am not arguing against acting on your conscience either. i am merely making the sad, sobering point that those with a higher conscience in this world pay a heavy price, unfortunately, for the sake of the actions of all the assholes without a conscience
its the way of the world. its not fair. it's just the way it is, and always will be
that being said, progress exists in this world. justice exists in this world. we see progress and justice raped, laughed at, pilloried, and otherwise spit upon on a daily basis, and yet those of us with a conscience endure, because when all is said and done, those with a conscience are the only ones that matter. everyone else are parasites living in the wake of the hard work of what those with a conscience make possible: a fair and just society. without that, there is no education, there is no science, there is no economic growth, there is no happiness, there is no reason for living
a human conscience is the foundation upon which human civilization exists. a human conscience makes our societies possible. and both civilization and prosperous societies are real. therefore, the efforts and sacrifices of a human conscience in this world matters, and works, and therefore this highest calling is worth enduring. without our human conscience, we are nothing but meaningless darkness and death
Slashdot Mirror
the usa should not have nuclear weapons. no nation should
so you should be spending your time pestering those with nukes to get rid of them. not condoning even more nations getting them!
its like "my neighbor has a meth lab. i won't try to get my neighbor to get rid of the meth lab. instead, i will simply support my other neighbor getting his own meth lab, so that its fair"
seriously?
and yet that is some people's reasoning on why nuclear proliferation is ok. its insane
you honestly believe this is some sort of insight? you honestly believe this is the merit on which you are able to criticize? really?
are you that daft and desperate to be seen as edgy that you lob that simpleminded a softball of criticism at that fat and easy of a target?
whoa dude: avatar is a derivation! no freakin' way! whoa! totally missed that! what a massive thunderbolt of criticism!
pffffffffft
the more nukes around the more chance for something bad to happen
yes, that the usa has nukes, but venezuela doesn't can be seen as hypocritical if you want
so, if you honestly believe the world is a better place with equanimity, you should be working very hard for the usa to get rid of its nuclear arsenal. and you should be happy venezuela was denied, and not in any way do you think the world is a better place if both countries have nukes
right? right?
(rolls eyes)
i won't be one either
to me it seems that confusing popularity with quality is less problematic than confusing your own opinion or the opinion of your clique with quality (THAT is sophistry). and yes, i will agree with you that $ from a film is not a completely accurate translation for what quality is. it is however, the most OBJECTIVE translation we have. box office success is therefore the only valid way we have to measure quality, as imperfect as it is
what i am saying is that for all the problems you can point out with simple box office returns=quality, every other method for judging quality is worse. and so box office returns is not perfect, but its the most valid of all the ways you can try to judge quality
i stopped reading here. could you please, OBJECTIVELY, substantiate how the story sucked
i am going to say the story is fantastic. i am going to OBJECTIVELY substantiate that claim by pointing at the box office returns
if you find some other OBJECTIVE way to gauge quality in a film, do get back to me. until then, you're just a mindlessly negative asshole, who criticizes without merit, like the other guy i'm responding to
cameron, because he is a science geek, injects the genuinely science-minded idea of shape memory alloy prominently into the plot of a wildly successful piece of pop movie making. no one but a genuine science geek would do this
but this is not good enough for you. he also has to abide by the rigid rules of physics
which is why you are not fit to judge cameron. nor ST:TOS. nor any piece of entertainment. because the point is to ENTERTAIN, not accurately describe how you turn a shape memory alloy into an evil robot!
and ST:TOS is about sexy green alien chicks you can flirt with and seduce and a guy who can grab your shoulder and make you fall down. its obviously complete bs. at the same time, its wildly entertaining. so if you are going to sit there and pick apart why it isn't real or physically plausible, you're merely undertaking a giant exercise in pointing out the fucking obvious that everyone already understands. you honestly believe a lack rigid adherence to scientific and technical accuracies is some sort of revelation of yours? you honeslty believe pointing out that science fiction on movies and tv is not possible? what part of "fucking obvious" do you not understand?
"Cameron's not a science geek, he's a science fanboy."
no: cameron is a science geek and an entertaining film maker. you are a science geek who doesn't even know what entertainment means
"he can't or won't apply the necessary rigor to apply them sanely"
NO ONE is going to do that, or has ever done that, EVER. because to do that, you are making a sleep-inducing technical training film, not a piece of entertainment
because while i was editting it, i watched it, and it sucked. no one else saw it except me. i am my own worst critic. maybe if i let other people watch it, they might say its not all that bad. but i'm not ready for that. someday. maybe you can be the first to see it. i'm sure you will give it the care and fair appraisal you are obviously so full of (rolls eyes)
i am not bitter about the experience. i tried to make a movie. it didn't go very well. oh well. all you can ask out of life is to try: it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. how about yourself? have you ever tried to do something with your life? or are you afraid and scared in your basement, and find solace for doing nothing at all by picking apart people who actually do do something with their lives... the career of one of the most successful people in hollywood history, for example. pfffft
"I'm just saying, being a failed artist is probably why you hate critics."
there's nothing wrong with criticism. for example: i think the basis on which you judge cameron is baseless and lame. see? that's called criticism. can you handle it?
"People like you, on the other hand, just want the kind of blind adoration you will never, ever get."
projecting much? you wear your psychology on your sleeve friend. i do not need or want blind adoration. but ultranegative criticism of others, especially successful people, speaks of narcissism. you are not a critic. you are mindlessly negative narcissistic nobody. your criticism of one of the most successful men in hollywood offends me because it is completely without merit. you are completely without merit, and you think you have merit, merely because you criticize. no, this merely means you don't know how to do anything else except egotize your relationship with the world: "this man's successful offends me, because i am not successful. so i must tear him down"
according to you? who the hell are you?
there is only one OBJECTIVE determinant of quality: box office business. everything else is subjective and therefore flawed
therefore, based on the only objective measure of quality we have available, james cameron is a quality film maker. this is an objective fact
money coming in=quality. you disagree with this definition? ok. show me another OBJECTIVE measure of quality and you will prove me wrong. can't do it. sorry
to imagine that you somehow speak for what quality film is, based on nothing but your own delusions of importance, is a commentary on your own psychological defects, and nothing more
pop wins. snobs lose. sorry
ghosts of the abyss, aliens of the deep... now avatar ii
frankly, james cameron is a deep sea diving enthusiast who made the mistake of having a career as a successful movie maker
its almost like he chooses his movies just so he can play with deep sea diving equipment. and the whole "making massive amounts of money with extremely successful pop movies" is an afterthought to his real passion in life. bizarre
trashing the career of one of the most successful directors in hollywood
(rolls eyes)
frankly, your post is nothing more than jealousy. you stand on a soap box of imagined authority to pass judgment on the man based on nothing but empty spite
you're just sour grapes. maybe it makes you feel better about your own failure to trash successful people, but the idea of losers pulling down others to their level is a social phenomenon as old as loser teenagers being angry at their peers who try to better themselves
you're just pathetic
meaning: the guy is not a hollywood idiot
i mean shape memory alloy turned into a villain in t2? or superconducting islands of rock in the air? the man is a true science geek in the vein of anyone else writing here on slashdot
so if anyone is going to get this thing built, with the money cameron has, he's going to do it, because he most certainly understands all of the objections you raised in your post. he is also diving fanatic, he got cameras to the titanic site, his technical and science acumen is outstanding
a science geek and an extremely successful movie director. frankly, cameron makes me completely jealous
**sigh**
now i may die in peace, the secret i have been searching for is revealed. my life is now complete
but technical intelligence is not the same as social intelligence
it takes a lot of technical intelligence to create an altitude sensitive bomb from scratch
it take only an average amount of social intelligence to understand a carrot works more than a stick
this is not to say social intelligence and technical intelligence are the only types of intelligence, nor that they are contrasting types. there are people who are both socially and technically intelligent, only socially intelligent, only technically intelligent, and some who are bereft of both intelligences
but for those without much social intelligence, who can't express themselves socially, but can express themselves technically, then throwing a temper tantrum (which is what terrorism is, emotionally) with a bomb might make sense
some people just don't have much experience with social situations to understand there are much better avenues to express themselves. so they blow shit up or shoot people
additionally, some people have a horrible poverty of the soul, never mind a low social iq: besides intelligence, there is also the measure of somone's empathy: affinity with other human beings. no matter what your social or political frustration, the willingness to hurt another human being for selfish reasons belies a horrible lack of basic human empathy
even someone completely bereft of any form of intelligence understand hurting someone else is wrong. to be devoid of that basic empathy is a special form of hell, and, for lack of a better word, is simply evil
1. speeding things up and destroying the perception of trust in the voting process
2. slowing things down, but garnering trust amongst the voters
i would rather the vote take 3 months myself. because i think i have my priorities in order a hell of a lot better than you do
"I know for a fact that the first Obamite that got in my face would be bruised. And a lot of those people can't help but getting in your face, it is who they are."
well you know, the tea party has a reputation as a bunch of angry hysterical thugs. which is a shame because there are genuine grievances in what they stand for. unfortunately, words like yours simply means the thuggishness is real with threats of physical force. so even though i'm not a tea party fan and am glad to see their name and character besmirched by the likes of you from the inside, i'll still say a big "fuck you" to you for helping to destroy the civility of the political landscape in this country by being a testosterone-addled asshole
and you accuse me of not remembering?
furthermore, for the sake of argument, i grant you complete acknowledgment of every concern you have just raised with the gore-bush florida fiasco of 2000...
and electronic voting is STILL worse and more delegitimizing for democracy. really
think about it: with a black box electronic voting process, voted go in, legislator sausage comes out. what happens in between?
at least with a hanging chad, you can look at the damn hanging chad and try to interpret intent. bt with electronic voting no one really knows what happens inside except some government bureaucrats who aren't paid enough. and we're supposed to trust that? really?
paper now. paper forever: you can TRUST paper. without trust in the voting process, there is no democracy. and electronic voting is inherently opaque, unnecessarily complex thereby exposing myriad of attack vectors, and therefore essentially untrustworthy
the only way you are not an idiot is if you work for an electronic voting machine manufacturer and are therefore hopefully compromised
look, it's very simple: the more complicated a machine or a process, the more the attack vectors. understand that, or understand nothing
take a ballot box stuffed with papers. list the ways you can manipulate it
take a mechanical voting machine. list the ways you can manipulate it
take an electronic voting machine. list the ways you can attack it
if there are 10 good ways to attack the paper ballots, there are 100 good ways to attack mechanical voting machines, and there are 1,000 good ways to attack the electronic voting machines. understand? more complicated = more attack vectors. its that simple, really. and voting just isn't that complicated a process that improves if unnecessarily mechanized for some reason
in some arenas of life, such as voting in a democracy, technophilicity, loving and embracing new technology, is not a merit, its a danger. that really is the truth
if the people view their voting process as a black box they don't understand and don't trust, this will color the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the people. its that simple. show me all of the encryption and verification processes you want. its gobblity gook. show me a paper ballot. i can touch, feel it, trust it. this is the only way a democracy should ever function, 200 years ago or 200 years in the future: paper. end of debate
there is trusting too much in this world: a sort of gullibility to someone because you look too much at certain shallow easily manipulated signifiers of what a trustworthy person should be (like: wear a suit)
then there is genuine trust or genuine distrust coming from someone with a competent intelligence: a wise wariness, an awareness of what you lack in knowledge of a person, an emphasis on looking at what they say and what they have done in the past: sound judgment leading to an appropriate trust level
then there is this sort of pathological distrust, the mirror image of gullibility. where even those who are good people are cast in doubt, due to blanket statements about things you don't know, prejudice, mindless negativity, and a dim perceptive ability. all of which are on display in your comment above
there are people in this world who trust too easily, and there are people who trust too hard. both of which being character failures due to psychological imbalance and/ or intelligence defect. you are such a person
with the fill in the oval, scan it system. it worked ok. at least it has a paper trail, and that's all you can ask for
it is superior in that respect to the mechanical voting machines they replaced: mechanical black box has less attack vectors that electronic black box, yes, but mechanical black box has more attack vectors than paper trail. yes, you can cheat in any voting system, but a massive conspiracy of ballot stuffers, drivers losing boxes of ballots, etc.: this can be replaced with a much smaller group of well-placed corrupt bureaucrats to manipulate mechanical voting, and with electronic, one well-placed hacker and a few milliseconds can alter the vote in ways that even statistical analysis can't reveal the manipulations
the lesson being: if your voting system is a black box: votes in, elected representative sausage out, people won't trust the vote. they need something tangible, something they can trust and understand, in their hands, which only a paper ballot is. the most advanced technophilic society 100 years form now should still be using paper, for the sake of legitimacy of the government in the eyes of its people
it's just too easy to hack a machine, and once you place doubt in the legitimacy of your elected officials, democracy itself is in trouble. we have enough angry idiots running around the usa today in the form of the tea party mumbling about "secret muslims." all we need is even the slightest perception of election machine untrustability, and the social unrest will be considerable. the reality or lack thereof of genuine hacking events isn't even the issue: PERCEPTION is the issue. enough people don't have faith in their government as it is, don't give them more reason to spin their paranoid schizophrenic fantasies and rabble rousing hysteria. because they will do it. and idiots will believe it
if you shoot the man, another merely fills his place. you've also turned murdoch into a martyr. fucking wonderful
the idea is to discredit the activity, not the man himself: rupert murdochs are a dime a dozen. so are loser internet tough guys talking about assassination and revolution
let's put it as clearly as a moron like yourself can understand it: as evil as rupert murdoch is, for what you just wrote, you are far worse
we want to discredit the ideology murdoch engages in. not adapt a thuggish mafia ideology far worse than murdoch's. you don't beat murdoch by being even more evil than him. got it you fucking retard?
go overcompensate for having a small penis some other way, you slimy piece of shit
has successfully repackaged propaganda as news, and has done untold damage to the civil discourse in half a dozen nations
why is this guy allowed to continue publishing under the guise of being a news source?
of course you shouldn't stop publishing him, its free speech. and of course the retards who unquestioningly trust this filth (obama is a "secret muslim!") share the blame
but doesn't society have a duty to clearly delineate fact from fiction? to, for example, insist that what this man publishes is "for entertainment value only, not to be confused with news"
the man is damaging western civilization by driving the topic of mass conversation into the area of political spin and smearmongering. surely we have a duty to insist that what is presented as news be news. otherwise, this man is assembling the riff raff into an angry stupid propagandized fountain of ill will eating at society
label the shit this man publishes, mark it clearly as fiction. let him have his corporate agenda-funded propaganda, its free speech. but i don't want to pay this cognitive tax on the stupid when it comes to civil discourse in my country any more
what bullshit
immorality is simply transgressing against another person. there's nothing beautiful about rape or theft or any other nuance of immorality. what the hell is your problem?
when zombie charlton heston says we can have his oscar when we pry it from his cold dead hands... is that redundant?
we need wacky and out there for this material
ron howard: apollo 13, a beautiful mind, the davinci code
akiva goldsman: lost in space, batman & robin, i robot
eh
they are excellent filmmakers and producers and writers with a spectacular run of success with solid well-done pop fare and are well-regarded and appreciated
but they have strolled into psychedelic territory here
a story like the dark tower needs a stanley kubrick, a david lynch, a martin scorsese, maybe even a tim burton: a master of the theatre of the macabre and absurd
not these middlebrow crowd pleasing hollywood mainstream guys
for something like the dark tower, we want week old road kill roasted over an oil drum fire by a paranoid schizophrenic hobo. we don't want olive garden
up +500
and yet, it exists
anyone with a conscience in this world has to offer up a pound of flesh for the actions of those without a conscience
i'm not saying this is justifiable, i am just saying it is inevitable
and i am not arguing against acting on your conscience either. i am merely making the sad, sobering point that those with a higher conscience in this world pay a heavy price, unfortunately, for the sake of the actions of all the assholes without a conscience
its the way of the world. its not fair. it's just the way it is, and always will be
that being said, progress exists in this world. justice exists in this world. we see progress and justice raped, laughed at, pilloried, and otherwise spit upon on a daily basis, and yet those of us with a conscience endure, because when all is said and done, those with a conscience are the only ones that matter. everyone else are parasites living in the wake of the hard work of what those with a conscience make possible: a fair and just society. without that, there is no education, there is no science, there is no economic growth, there is no happiness, there is no reason for living
a human conscience is the foundation upon which human civilization exists. a human conscience makes our societies possible. and both civilization and prosperous societies are real. therefore, the efforts and sacrifices of a human conscience in this world matters, and works, and therefore this highest calling is worth enduring. without our human conscience, we are nothing but meaningless darkness and death