at least the guys manning the nukes have a sense of humor (that's a military patch)
personally, i like to envision them with a stack of dvds and a popcorn machine in their missile silos, watching dr. strangelove and red dawn, playing missile command on a 1980s atari hooked up to a 52" lcd
i suppose you would prefer cops going back to beating or shooting people?
or i suppose you want cops to have no use of force at all, because the kind of people police encounter (that they are protecting YOU from) are universally philosophers of love and reason
of course police brutality is a real phenomenon. of course police will overreact and use tasers when they shouldn't. as if any of these awful situations somehow means not using a taser is a better scenario, for everyone involved, or magically makes these problems go away
the point is to subdue deranged people with nonlethal force. NO TECHNOLOGY YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE will be 100% foolproof in this regard, every method has its drawbacks, bringing down a deranged drug user is and never will be foolproof in terms of harm to the deranged drug user, or the cops. additionally, cops are human beings, not robots or omnipotent beings (which some people seem to have as a starting point when describing how cops should behave), and they will screw up, and there will be bad apples that shouldn't even be cops in the first place
but thank god they have tasers, and aren't shooting people instead. tasers are a BENEFIT in terms of overall reduction of use of lethal force
if you care about police brutality, you will thank the stars that the taser was invented. that really is the truth
why does this for some reason make it suspect or inadequate?
mankind makes all sorts of things that don't exist in the natural world: houses, clothes, guns, rocket ships, etc. the rules defining how he treats other humans is one of those things he simply makes up, and it simply works, and it simply improves his life, as much as that house, clothes, etc
of course morality is imperfect. who cares? its still better than no morality or ethnically/ nationalistically/ religiously based forms of chauvinistic morality
puerto rico is a large genetic pool of people who for historic and geographic reasons are pretty much 1/3 taino (substituting for east asian, if you will grant me the conceit), 1/3 european, and 1/3 black
that's morality, and its universal. there are edge conditions: "women shouldn't behave immodestly" for example, that has all sorts of interpretations according to local customs from the netherlands to saudi arabia
however, i would assert to you that the only morally and defensible point of view for frsming ANY opinion or morality is a global one. not that enough people do nowadays, unfortunately
yes, most people only talk about their morality from a point of view of ethnic or nationalistic or religious chauvinism: "in the muslim world, we don't..." "in america, we don't..." "true russians don't...." followed by some moral observation that, by implication, says outside the borders of that subset of people, there is only immorality and barbarism. this kind of exclusionary thinking, in turn, becomes the ROOT CAUSE of suffering and injustice, and is in a sense, a form of immorality
in other words, yes, there is a sense of universal morality. and it is absolutely a superior basis for judgment and thought than: 1. no morality at all, or 2. morality based on random tribal subsets of people
Having now taken a job as a computer programmer at Webscoe Industries, Gus Gorman is extremely disappointed when he sees his first paycheck. "Where did it all go?" he asks. During lunch, Gus and a friend discuss all the percentages taken from a paycheck. When Gus tells him that there has to be fractions of cents left over, Gus's friend tells him that the checks are rounded down to the nearest "half-cent". "Where do those half-cents go?" asked Gus. Suddenly, another light bulb goes on above Gus's head. When everyone else is leaving, Gus is still busy programming.
tell me with a straight face that mccain would overhaul healthcare
its' like this: from out in the prairie, two peaks in the rocky mountains look the same. but in the valley between those mountains, they couldn't be more different
the two parties ARE different. VERY different in HUGE ways. but not different enough for you. but that's only because your perspective is from far away. being on the fringe though, frankly, your perspective doesn't matter and shouldn't matter: the middle, and only the middle matters, and should matter, in a stable democracy
"I'm saying in a two party system the electorate can't punish them for this decision to go to war (UK case), or for anything else the general public thinks were bad decisions."
uh... they vote?!
"Your claim is that two party system is pandering to the middle. But the way I see it is that the middle is dragged to wherever the two parties want to take it - because the middle has no choice in the matter anyway."
there are pluses and minuses to every system. i happen to view pandering to the middle to be extremely important. and i don't accept that two parties is for some reason why iraq was invaded, that if it weren't two parties, iraq would not be invaded, which to me is a ludicrous wild suggestion on your part
now explain the fallacy i have committed. your failure to substantiate your accusation means you are smearing me without an ability to back up or even understand what you are accusing me of. simply saying "this is a fallacy" without explaining WHY it is a fallacy has no meaning
make a coherent logical argument against my words or shut the fuck up. drop the name calling and smears. i believe there is a word for this sort of failure in logic in rhetorical argument where one makes a claim without backing the judgment up. i leave it to your vast genius to find the link for me on nizkor.org for what that exotic logical concept is. pfffffffft
the greatest enemy, throughout economic history, of capitalism, is not communism and socialism, it is oligopolies and monopolies. IN THE NAME OF capitalism, you must fight large corporations buying off your government
entrenched corporate interests warp the marketplace by buying off legislators to consolidate their power. entrenched corporate interests have an impulse to strangle the marketplace to reduce their risk, by warping the rules in their favor, big players. but all they do is DESTROY THE MARKETPLACE
if you are a true capitalist, a true believer in the free marketplace, know this: your greatest enemy is large corporations, and SECONDARILY, the government, only in so far that large corporations use and buy off the government to further their interests
you keep the market free by keeping the players honest. when the largest players use their heft to crush the little guys, the free market is warped and destroyed
the greatest free market capitalist is a monopoly and oligopoly buster
two major parties means they pander to the middle. this is actually a good thing, as it means the government actually represents the will of the people: the middle. of course cranks on the left or right will complain about the leaders being too liberal/ conservative, but this is only because they consider the MIDDLE to be too liberal/ conservative. but the job of the government is to represent the people, and when you have two parties fighting over votes from the middle, and adjusting their message accordingly, the people actually get represented and THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING
but in coalition governments, you have all these factions, and they freely completely betray their ideology in order to get in bed to share power with other factions, having nothing whatsoever to do with advancing whatever fringe position you believe in, but everything to do with a craven grab for power. ask any german. in other words, you look to other systems as if they were better than the two party system. but that's only because you are unfamiliar with the awful evils of coalition governments and other forms of democracy. you would complain just as loudly as you are now in another democratic system. because there's ALWAYS a betrayal and weakness somewhere
you don't recognize the strengths of the two party system. so be careful what you wish for, and know the actual truth of politics for what it is: ugly, no matter what the system. personally, i believe the two party system is superior, if you analyze the pluses and minuses impartially, rather than simply moan cynically out of unawareness of other weaknesses in other systems. two systems pandering to the middle is wonderful for stability and keeping fringe left leaning and fringe right leaning voices out of our government
why does money have to change hands anywhere? this is an assumption you are making and then arguing from that assumption
i make a song, i put it on the intartubes, and it gets popular, then i announce a gig, and people show up: THAT'S when money first has to enter the picture
in other words, with the internet, artist=distributor. the distributor has simply been made technologically obsolete, further rushing into obsolescence by insisting everyone play by rules and laws that ONLY WORK IN THE WORLD BEFORE THE INTERNET
now of course empty op acts will still exist, and promoters will amp up pop acts to drum up demand. and they will fill arenas and make gobs of money for doing that. but what they CAN'T do anymore is insist on paywalls for that act's recorded music. simply because its unenforceable, and simply because it makes less business sense in the internet world: like radio, free songs are how the act gets attention. think of recorded music as advertising for pop acts for gigs, advertising, personalized content, etc., in the internet age
the cassette/ vinyl model of FORCING people to pay for what they can get for free is simply dead. the internet killed that business model
you are making an observation about a completely separate issue
if someone hands out free gum they made as product sample, and a store hands out free gum as product sample, but reimburses the gum manufacturer, there is NO DIFFERENCE as far as the relationship with the CONSUMER goes
and then i ask you: so what? how has anything changed?
this is the way it has always been, and always will be: a few artists make millions, the other 99% struggle in obscurity. the internet doesn't change this
with the internet and the new economic phenomenon the long tail that the internet makes possible, all those little acts that in previous eras would be cut out of the action, now they get action. they're not all going to become millionaires, but they'll make 5 figures rather 4 figures, or 6 figures rather than 5 figures, or even 4 figures rather 3 figures is nice even
with no riaa ownership trolling of our culture, the fringe just got more lucrative, in aggregate, than a world where you only got ANY exposure if you signed a distribution deal (and even then, you were usually screwed: only the HUGEST hits had any bargaining power with the distributors)
once upon a time, there was this communist terrorist unpatriotic business model called "radio"
they would play songs, get this, FOR FREE. anyone could hear it without having to pay money and signing away their rights! can you imagine something so socialist and unamerican?!
then this would create DEMAND for more of the artist's product
of course, in the era of radio, the demand was for vinyl and cassette tapes
but here's the funny thing:
in the age of the internet, the "radio" is the browser and the listening area is the entire world
and the publisher IS THE ARTIST HIM/HERSELF. no distributor needed
and the demand created is for paid concert gigs, advertising endorsements, personalized content, etc.
what is this wacky unamerican world?
i would think it best be called a free and unfettered marketplace: unfettered by an OLIGOPOLY or a MONOPOLY
see the big lie, RIAA, is you are not preserving american financial interests. you are preserving an entrenched oligopoly that simply isn't needed anymore in the age of the internet, and your death means more free and unfettered capitalism, without any oversight and intrusion. i think some people call this "american"
imagine that
corporate interests != free market. and as any student of economic history knows, the true enemy of capitalism is not communism or socialism, it is monopolies and oligopolies strangling the market to dominate it
in short RIAA: the interests you defend represent a distribution economy which has been rendered technologically obsolete, AND you hamper the free market place, AND now you wish to intrude on individual rights enshrined in our constitution in order to preserve your technologically obsolete business model. how about this instead: FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY
you've been rendered obsolete. deal with it and die. that is your only fate, whether you accept it or not. it does not reflect well on you to be so thoroughly and inevitably defeated and not know it yet
pedophile recidivism rates, which my comment referred to, are the highest
sex offenders in general can be "treated" or "punished" because again, the disconnect is between the desire ("i want to have sex"), which isn't a problem, and the method ("gee i think i'll rape someone"), which is a problem
but with pedophiles, the root desire itself is a problem, which cannot be treated or punished. its always there, no matter what you do. so such a person simply cannot exist with society. it is not conscionable for a society, once it finds out someone has this predilection, a predilection they know will never go away, to ever allow this person near children ever again. and since you can't turn society into a police state where children are lock away, it is incumbent upon you as a responsible society to lock the pedophiles away, forever. this is extreme suffering for their crimes. as if there were some other way. there isn't another way. pedophiles are simply born with an organic desire they must suffer their entire lives for, they have been make incompatible with human society. its a lot of suffering, as if they were born with huntington's disease or tay sachs disease, but it is what it is: is it fair that anyone is born with huntington's disease or tay sachs disease and they must suffer for that?
location is really really good between europe/ north america
the cable layers would need thick hulls, but otherwise, yeah: i think iceland is well-suited as an ideal datacenter location of the future, for political reasons even
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2007/12/04/patch_bunny_slippers.jpg
at least the guys manning the nukes have a sense of humor (that's a military patch)
personally, i like to envision them with a stack of dvds and a popcorn machine in their missile silos, watching dr. strangelove and red dawn, playing missile command on a 1980s atari hooked up to a 52" lcd
i suppose you would prefer cops going back to beating or shooting people?
or i suppose you want cops to have no use of force at all, because the kind of people police encounter (that they are protecting YOU from) are universally philosophers of love and reason
of course police brutality is a real phenomenon. of course police will overreact and use tasers when they shouldn't. as if any of these awful situations somehow means not using a taser is a better scenario, for everyone involved, or magically makes these problems go away
the point is to subdue deranged people with nonlethal force. NO TECHNOLOGY YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE will be 100% foolproof in this regard, every method has its drawbacks, bringing down a deranged drug user is and never will be foolproof in terms of harm to the deranged drug user, or the cops. additionally, cops are human beings, not robots or omnipotent beings (which some people seem to have as a starting point when describing how cops should behave), and they will screw up, and there will be bad apples that shouldn't even be cops in the first place
but thank god they have tasers, and aren't shooting people instead. tasers are a BENEFIT in terms of overall reduction of use of lethal force
if you care about police brutality, you will thank the stars that the taser was invented. that really is the truth
why does this for some reason make it suspect or inadequate?
mankind makes all sorts of things that don't exist in the natural world: houses, clothes, guns, rocket ships, etc. the rules defining how he treats other humans is one of those things he simply makes up, and it simply works, and it simply improves his life, as much as that house, clothes, etc
of course morality is imperfect. who cares? its still better than no morality or ethnically/ nationalistically/ religiously based forms of chauvinistic morality
in the future, everyone will be puerto rican
puerto rico is a large genetic pool of people who for historic and geographic reasons are pretty much 1/3 taino (substituting for east asian, if you will grant me the conceit), 1/3 european, and 1/3 black
don't rape
don't steal
etc.
that's morality, and its universal. there are edge conditions: "women shouldn't behave immodestly" for example, that has all sorts of interpretations according to local customs from the netherlands to saudi arabia
however, i would assert to you that the only morally and defensible point of view for frsming ANY opinion or morality is a global one. not that enough people do nowadays, unfortunately
yes, most people only talk about their morality from a point of view of ethnic or nationalistic or religious chauvinism: "in the muslim world, we don't..." "in america, we don't..." "true russians don't...." followed by some moral observation that, by implication, says outside the borders of that subset of people, there is only immorality and barbarism. this kind of exclusionary thinking, in turn, becomes the ROOT CAUSE of suffering and injustice, and is in a sense, a form of immorality
in other words, yes, there is a sense of universal morality. and it is absolutely a superior basis for judgment and thought than: 1. no morality at all, or 2. morality based on random tribal subsets of people
is that you?
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=m-movie3
that gore would have invaded iraq
tell me with a straight face that mccain would overhaul healthcare
its' like this: from out in the prairie, two peaks in the rocky mountains look the same. but in the valley between those mountains, they couldn't be more different
the two parties ARE different. VERY different in HUGE ways. but not different enough for you. but that's only because your perspective is from far away. being on the fringe though, frankly, your perspective doesn't matter and shouldn't matter: the middle, and only the middle matters, and should matter, in a stable democracy
costumers deserve candy, on october 31st
weird petrifying helplessness
"I'm saying in a two party system the electorate can't punish them for this decision to go to war (UK case), or for anything else the general public thinks were bad decisions."
uh... they vote?!
"Your claim is that two party system is pandering to the middle. But the way I see it is that the middle is dragged to wherever the two parties want to take it - because the middle has no choice in the matter anyway."
uh... maybe they vote?!
have you ever heard of VOTING?
wtf?
there are pluses and minuses to every system. i happen to view pandering to the middle to be extremely important. and i don't accept that two parties is for some reason why iraq was invaded, that if it weren't two parties, iraq would not be invaded, which to me is a ludicrous wild suggestion on your part
i know what a fallacy is
now explain the fallacy i have committed. your failure to substantiate your accusation means you are smearing me without an ability to back up or even understand what you are accusing me of. simply saying "this is a fallacy" without explaining WHY it is a fallacy has no meaning
make a coherent logical argument against my words or shut the fuck up. drop the name calling and smears. i believe there is a word for this sort of failure in logic in rhetorical argument where one makes a claim without backing the judgment up. i leave it to your vast genius to find the link for me on nizkor.org for what that exotic logical concept is. pfffffffft
the greatest enemy, throughout economic history, of capitalism, is not communism and socialism, it is oligopolies and monopolies. IN THE NAME OF capitalism, you must fight large corporations buying off your government
entrenched corporate interests warp the marketplace by buying off legislators to consolidate their power. entrenched corporate interests have an impulse to strangle the marketplace to reduce their risk, by warping the rules in their favor, big players. but all they do is DESTROY THE MARKETPLACE
if you are a true capitalist, a true believer in the free marketplace, know this: your greatest enemy is large corporations, and SECONDARILY, the government, only in so far that large corporations use and buy off the government to further their interests
you keep the market free by keeping the players honest. when the largest players use their heft to crush the little guys, the free market is warped and destroyed
the greatest free market capitalist is a monopoly and oligopoly buster
two major parties means they pander to the middle. this is actually a good thing, as it means the government actually represents the will of the people: the middle. of course cranks on the left or right will complain about the leaders being too liberal/ conservative, but this is only because they consider the MIDDLE to be too liberal/ conservative. but the job of the government is to represent the people, and when you have two parties fighting over votes from the middle, and adjusting their message accordingly, the people actually get represented and THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING
but in coalition governments, you have all these factions, and they freely completely betray their ideology in order to get in bed to share power with other factions, having nothing whatsoever to do with advancing whatever fringe position you believe in, but everything to do with a craven grab for power. ask any german. in other words, you look to other systems as if they were better than the two party system. but that's only because you are unfamiliar with the awful evils of coalition governments and other forms of democracy. you would complain just as loudly as you are now in another democratic system. because there's ALWAYS a betrayal and weakness somewhere
you don't recognize the strengths of the two party system. so be careful what you wish for, and know the actual truth of politics for what it is: ugly, no matter what the system. personally, i believe the two party system is superior, if you analyze the pluses and minuses impartially, rather than simply moan cynically out of unawareness of other weaknesses in other systems. two systems pandering to the middle is wonderful for stability and keeping fringe left leaning and fringe right leaning voices out of our government
why does money have to change hands anywhere? this is an assumption you are making and then arguing from that assumption
i make a song, i put it on the intartubes, and it gets popular, then i announce a gig, and people show up: THAT'S when money first has to enter the picture
in other words, with the internet, artist=distributor. the distributor has simply been made technologically obsolete, further rushing into obsolescence by insisting everyone play by rules and laws that ONLY WORK IN THE WORLD BEFORE THE INTERNET
now of course empty op acts will still exist, and promoters will amp up pop acts to drum up demand. and they will fill arenas and make gobs of money for doing that. but what they CAN'T do anymore is insist on paywalls for that act's recorded music. simply because its unenforceable, and simply because it makes less business sense in the internet world: like radio, free songs are how the act gets attention. think of recorded music as advertising for pop acts for gigs, advertising, personalized content, etc., in the internet age
the cassette/ vinyl model of FORCING people to pay for what they can get for free is simply dead. the internet killed that business model
you are making an observation about a completely separate issue
if someone hands out free gum they made as product sample, and a store hands out free gum as product sample, but reimburses the gum manufacturer, there is NO DIFFERENCE as far as the relationship with the CONSUMER goes
and the answer is "very little, if any $"
and then i ask you: so what? how has anything changed?
this is the way it has always been, and always will be: a few artists make millions, the other 99% struggle in obscurity. the internet doesn't change this
except... it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail
with the internet and the new economic phenomenon the long tail that the internet makes possible, all those little acts that in previous eras would be cut out of the action, now they get action. they're not all going to become millionaires, but they'll make 5 figures rather 4 figures, or 6 figures rather than 5 figures, or even 4 figures rather 3 figures is nice even
with no riaa ownership trolling of our culture, the fringe just got more lucrative, in aggregate, than a world where you only got ANY exposure if you signed a distribution deal (and even then, you were usually screwed: only the HUGEST hits had any bargaining power with the distributors)
in regards to the part of radio i am actually talking about
you are talking about another part of real radio, that has nothing to do with the analogy, nor the subject matter at hand
even then, your description is wrong: look up payola
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
i mean sure, you also use broadcast towers in radio, but there are no broadcast towers on the internet, therefore my analogy is invalid
right?!
welcome to logic fail
falsehoods, half truths, and fallacies: no
tell me exactly where my depiction is logically incorrect, and i will correct myself, or, in the spirit of my glorious immaturity, fuck off
to protect the future rather than the past"
most insightful 14 words i've heard so far this year
i would like to coopt, exploit, and otherwise steal your brilliant campaign slogan, with attribution of course ;-)
once upon a time, there was this communist terrorist unpatriotic business model called "radio"
they would play songs, get this, FOR FREE. anyone could hear it without having to pay money and signing away their rights! can you imagine something so socialist and unamerican?!
then this would create DEMAND for more of the artist's product
of course, in the era of radio, the demand was for vinyl and cassette tapes
but here's the funny thing:
in the age of the internet, the "radio" is the browser and the listening area is the entire world
and the publisher IS THE ARTIST HIM/HERSELF. no distributor needed
and the demand created is for paid concert gigs, advertising endorsements, personalized content, etc.
what is this wacky unamerican world?
i would think it best be called a free and unfettered marketplace: unfettered by an OLIGOPOLY or a MONOPOLY
see the big lie, RIAA, is you are not preserving american financial interests. you are preserving an entrenched oligopoly that simply isn't needed anymore in the age of the internet, and your death means more free and unfettered capitalism, without any oversight and intrusion. i think some people call this "american"
imagine that
corporate interests != free market. and as any student of economic history knows, the true enemy of capitalism is not communism or socialism, it is monopolies and oligopolies strangling the market to dominate it
in short RIAA: the interests you defend represent a distribution economy which has been rendered technologically obsolete, AND you hamper the free market place, AND now you wish to intrude on individual rights enshrined in our constitution in order to preserve your technologically obsolete business model. how about this instead: FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY
you've been rendered obsolete. deal with it and die. that is your only fate, whether you accept it or not. it does not reflect well on you to be so thoroughly and inevitably defeated and not know it yet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framekiller
one line of code:
top.location.replace(self.location.href);
put it in every page you ever publish on the web
it's not 100% foolproof, nothing is
but it's so little effort for protection from an important kind of xss attack
i am moved by the religiosity of that thought: "a ufo is free forever"
this emotional moment has changed my life. i need to spread the word, start a movement
pedophile recidivism rates, which my comment referred to, are the highest
sex offenders in general can be "treated" or "punished" because again, the disconnect is between the desire ("i want to have sex"), which isn't a problem, and the method ("gee i think i'll rape someone"), which is a problem
but with pedophiles, the root desire itself is a problem, which cannot be treated or punished. its always there, no matter what you do. so such a person simply cannot exist with society. it is not conscionable for a society, once it finds out someone has this predilection, a predilection they know will never go away, to ever allow this person near children ever again. and since you can't turn society into a police state where children are lock away, it is incumbent upon you as a responsible society to lock the pedophiles away, forever. this is extreme suffering for their crimes. as if there were some other way. there isn't another way. pedophiles are simply born with an organic desire they must suffer their entire lives for, they have been make incompatible with human society. its a lot of suffering, as if they were born with huntington's disease or tay sachs disease, but it is what it is: is it fair that anyone is born with huntington's disease or tay sachs disease and they must suffer for that?
if not the massive hydroelectric dam 25 miles away?
location is really really good between europe/ north america
the cable layers would need thick hulls, but otherwise, yeah: i think iceland is well-suited as an ideal datacenter location of the future, for political reasons even