when i heard "Lord Lucas" i thought "good gosh, george has done gone from genius in the '70s, to feeble hack in the 2000s, and now into outright dementia, confusing reality with his fantasy world, imagining himself senator palpatine himself, walking around in his bathrobe and hissing at ILM underlings and trying to vivisection visiting cartoon network executives with a torchiere lamp from the reception area"
The classification of Ceres has changed more than once and has been the subject of some disagreement. Johann Elert Bode believed Ceres to be the "missing planet" he had proposed to exist between Mars and Jupiter, at a distance of 419 million km (2.8 AU) from the Sun.[17] Ceres was assigned a planetary symbol, and remained listed as a planet in astronomy books and tables (along with 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta) for about half a century until further asteroids were discovered.[17][25][35] However, as other objects were discovered in the area it was realised that Ceres represented the first of a class of many similar bodies.[17] In 1802 Sir William Herschel coined the term asteroid ("star-like") for such bodies,[35] writing "they resemble small stars so much as hardly to be distinguished from them, even by very good telescopes".[36] As the first such body to be discovered, it was given the designation 1 Ceres under the modern system of asteroid numbering.[35]
they got over it WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS FOUND TO BE FULL OF SUCH MIDGETS
sound familiar? when the deluge of asteroids came in, people thought "uh, its going a little crazy with these planets here, lets lop off the pretenders". now, as they search and catalog the oort cloud, they find that pluto's experience is like ceres's experience in the asteroid belt: planet, until the deluge of neighbors, then demotion. its happened before, its happening again. there's no claim to pluto's status except nostalgia. they got over it in the 1800s, you can get over it now
pluto was discovered in in 1930, and kicked out of the club in 2006. that's a nice 75 year run, 50% more time than ceres
the only thing you have going for your clinging to pluto is adherence to tradition. that's not a good reason to say everything and its uncle is a planet, just to preserve pluto's status. its far easier to lop off pluto, consider us to have 4 (rocky) +4 (gas) planets, and be done with it. everything else is dwarf planet/ comet/ asteroid/ etc.: detritus, flotsam and jetsam, left over rocks, of lower import than the main 8
unfortunately i only caught one hysteric with my stilted wording, but its a good one
i consider myself a moderate. of course liberals and conservatives have equal claim to adequacy, and idiocies abound in either direction. duh. you don't need to defend the obvious truth to every moron and troll you see on teh intarwebs, relax
this ridiculous argument is a good definition of conservatism versus liberalism, in the abstract
the idea that pluto is a planet or not has absolutely no relevance to anyone's life. it is also a pretty arbitrary and pointless issue: no one has any vested interests here. however, it is memorized as a child, and has a long tradition
therefore, i bet you if you asked a random sample of self-identified conservatives, in any country, they would choose pluto remain a planet. and i would also bet a random sample of self-identified liberals worldwide would choose that pluto not be a planet
because the only issue here is tradition. obsequious unthinking obedience to the past and a dimwitted anxiety at anything new, ie, conservatism, versus forward thinking logic and rationality, aka liberalism
your "thesis" is nothing but racism and ethnic and religious prejudice
the simple truth is, within any community, there is violence and sexual abuse (the amish have a higher rate of domestic abuse than outside the community), and there is peace and tranquility (the huao live in balance with their natural environment)
every single man woman and child, no matter what cultural background, has the potential for great evil, and great good. and to talk of cultural modifications is to deny personal responsibility, deny personal freedom, and traffic in the lamest racist and prejudicial thinking. you prejudge people: you see that, right?
that amish guy who cradled the murderer might go home and beat his wife. that huao 5 year old child might decide to embrace his father's killer instead. can you know if they choose otherwise? are their destinies written and unchanging and unyielding by your cultural relativistic bullshit?
give it up, at best you're naive and inexperienced of the world, at worst you're a racist, most definitely you're sheltered. go live in seoul, go live in beirut, go live in lagos, go live in buenos aires: in every human community in the world you will find saints and sinners and even tempered people and madmen and criminals and cops and hate-filled hearts and the loving
human personality and character is a statistical continuum across time and space. no culture or society manifests a skewed representation of one aspect of human behavior or another. to believe otherwise is to be a deluded inexperienced fool of human behavior in this world and throughout history
the amish live in peace beacuse they CAN: they are nestled deep in the american heartland. their philosophy is only possible because of their parasitical relationship with a larger entity: the united states. you know, the united states, remember gw bush, the warmongerer? the amish voted for him in vast majority. meanwhile, plop the amish in the middle of someplace like, oh, the caucasus mountains, and you will see one of two things: 1. instant extinction of the amish. 2. the emergence of the amish, known as the fierce war-makers: cultural "attitude" depends upon context. meanwhile, the huao, given protections from their neighbors like he amish enjoy in the usa, would have no desire to imperialistically go out and destroy others. the huao, above all things, just want to be left alone. so your judgments of these "cultures" exists in vacuum of considering the context in which they exist
man of war who bequeathed his society peaceful reform
judge human beings as INDIVIDUALS, not as some racist subtype: all turks are imperialsts, all quakers are peace-loving: fucking racist thinking. your heart is full of prejudice
at best you're just cotton-headed naive, at worst your in danger of ethnocentric and prejudicial thinking
in the revolutionary war, quakers forbid military activities, even though many quakers assisted the revolution through furnishing many needed supplies. they were not able to actually fight and still remain in their religion. the society of friends valued strong education much more than any other people in the colonial days, and still does to this day. if a member of the society of friends took up arms they were immediately cast out of the quaker groups in any colony, state, or country
one such man, who was cast out of the religion he was born into, was nathanael greene
why? because he became one of the greatest american generals to ever live, an extremely effective man of war. he studied voraciously tracts of war on his own initiative and self-educated himself on the methods of killing other men en masse to the point that it was his brilliant tactics and strategy that defeated the british in the south, and led directly to the conditions that resulted in cornwallis's stunning surrender, and the end of the revolutionary war
how is this possible given his upbringing? because his cultural upbringing is inconsequential, as is mine, as is yours, as is anyone's, on questions of basic human psychological potential for ANY human endeavour, violent or nonviolent, moral or immoral, just or injust
human psychology is human psychology is human psychology. the only voyage that matters is your voyage as an individual in this world, and it is the only morally and logically cohesive framework in which you can judge a person: as an individual
are you american? well, all americans are warlike monsters. are you muslim? well all muslims are unthinkingly obedient fools. are any of those statements fair? absolutely not, they are prejudicial. but this kind of thinking is a direct result of YOUR way of thinking, in which you hold arbitrary, minor and utterly inconsequential tribal boundaries as the master's of destiny
the truth: human psychology is a constant across time and space, and culture is but a tiny inconsequential tweak of it. there is nothing of the amish, of the canadian, of the brazilian, of the sikh, of the polish, of whatever, that is somehow unique only to that culture, society, or people and somehow determines their fate in such a way that it overrides basic human psychology
you are not describing western culture, or judeochristian culture, or american culture, or southern culture, or whatever you think are describing
you are describing human nature. its fundamental human psychology that is in play here, not the "mythology" of one group
there is not a society that has ever existed on this planet, or will ever exist, that the quote above does not apply to
know human nature for what it is: the good, the bad, and the ugly (yes, i intended that;-). don't hold one culture or society guilty for what all societies and cultures are guilty of
but i take exception with a phrase in your last sentence
"good to know that you are in control"
your actions do not sound like someone in control. in fact, you were out of control. you say so yourself
"It felt empowering afterward but at the time I was too terrified horrified and enraged to notice"
again i'm glad you stood up for yourself, but recognize that this temporary rage of yours was not really a good thing to be driven to. absolutely necessary, yes, but not good. not everything we are driven and compelled to do in this life are good actions we should be happy happened. not that i see you taking joy in the event, but there are others out there who might have enjoyed it
as an allegory, it is entirely appropriate and reasonable to kill someone entering your house in the dead of night: you have no idea what his intentions are, and they're obviously not good. however, a truly moral person takes no sense of joy in the unfortunately necessary action, only sadness
when you take pleasure in the infliction of pain on others, no matter the context or scenario, you begin to become the bully you are fighting
i'm not saying you took such joy, but i'm merely using your scenario as a way to jump off and make a deeper point here
describes a problem with a Ford Territory getting stuck with the cruise control actively trying to keep the vehicle at 100km/hr.
A couple of things to answer the 'this guy was idiot, I'm so clever it wouldn't have happened to me' crowd:
1. He couldn't turn off the ignition as the car won't let you do that if the car is moving.
2. He couldn't shift to neutral because the car wouldn't let him push the shift release button. (It was an automatic, so no clutch pedal.)
3. Pushing the brake wasn't helping enough to stop the car. (In the end it worked, but he had to jump on it with both feet all his adrenaline fuelled strength while pulling as hard as he could on the handbrake.)
4. The accelerator pedal only worked to speed him up, It wasn't a pedal 'sticking to the mat' issue, as the car was holding itself exactly to the speed of the cruise control.
5. The car was going too fast to just ram into a barrier or tree, etc.
6. The guy called Ford Australia (on his mobile phone), who couldn't help him and put him on hold. So then he called the police who, to their credit, cleared the road ahead and kept him calm enough to eventually get the car to stop. The total ordeal lasted 50 minutes.
7. The recording of the police call was released and played on the news and it was pretty obvious that both the guy and the police were doing everything to get the car to stop. This was not a situation where a quick two second phone call to a know-it-all Slashdotter would have solved the problem.
Anyway, I can't believe this news didn't make Slashdot when it happened a couple of months ago, as it contains considerably more information than the usual fare on this topic.
we need to tow australia up to the northern hemisphere, give it someone to talk to and play with. it's kind of getting cabin fever down there in the nothingness and kind of losing its mind. all it has to talk to is new zealand, and we all know what that's worth
mainly because iran employs a diabolical tactic that no american interceptor can defeat: if a missile of their's is shot down, they merely photoshop some more:
however, i would encourage american military planners to adopt iran's own dark tactics against it, and photoshop lots of missile interceptors. that should do the trick
and if the combined powers of fark photoshop and 4chan were militarized, we could bury iranian internet warriors in sheer volume of photoshopped missiles. throw in some lolcats, general ackbar, gold paint sniffer dude, and that guy riding a missile from "dr. strangelove", and iranian missiles will be decisively defeated
you mean voyeuristic fetishists, then yes, they've won
but if by terrorists you mean militant muslim fundamentalists, then no, the goal of global caliphate does not include the violation of the self-conscious squeamishness of fat people
nowadays superbanana can be found under the highway overpass, yelling at tourists on segways, blustering about the threat of hipster retards, drunk on 100% organic free trade prison hooch
"Thanks to Tim Berners-Lee, you can now sit in your underwear in Omaha and learn French from a tutor in Paris."
this is disgusting. i'm not sure what "learn french" is slang for, but i have a clue since its done in your underwear "in omaha": obviously some variation on shibari japanese rope bondage. how puerile. and i don't think slashdot needs to be the place for yet more attention for that whore paris hilton, no matter that there is a tutor in her, or whatever is in her, has anything or anyone not been in her?
and i don't know who this Tim Berners-Lee fellow is but he's obviously some sort of pornography-addicted pervert. yet more proof the internet has been warped form the noble intentions of whoever started the internet. probably some nice science fellow working trying to better mankind with some sort of high minded science research, not this Tim Berners-Lee degenerate mentioned here
this is a common problem with people making quick judgments
like "she deserved to be raped, because she was wearing skimpy clothing"
if you are transgressed against, it doesn't matter how foolish you behave before or after the transgression. let me repeat that, since so many obviously don't understand the point: it doesn't matter AT ALL how lame the victim is of any crime, before or after the crime took place. there is still a crime that took place, and it was perpetrated by someone else. and if the criminal wasn't there, the victim would not have been violated. the ONLY blame for ANY crime is the criminal, not the victim, no matter how unsympathetic the victim. please, people understand this and develop some vague moral compass to your life: the ONLY blame for ANY crime is the criminal, not the victim, no matter how unsympathetic the victim. let it sink in, understand this really is the only logically coherent understanding of crime and punishment
so no woman, even if she walks nude into a biker bar, deserves to be raped, and if she is, it is the rapist's fault and the rapist's fault alone. this is the only morally coherent judgment possible
and no driver, no matter how lame and idiotic, deserves to be in a car with faulty features. and if the car accelerates due to toyota's error, toyota, and toyota alone is to blame, no matter how badly the driver tries to mitigate the situation, or whatever they did preceding the situation
if the driver was drunk, on meth, watching a dvd, and texting, and being blown by a hooker, and their car accelerated due to toyota manufacturing, and the driver's response was simply to cry and wet their pants, despite even the most obvious of dozens of possible responses, the simple and only moral truth possible for you to consider is that toyota, and toyota alone, is to blame. examine the logic. understand why. stop being so quick to judge and understand why the criminal NEVER shares blame with his victim
so in all these slashdotter's arch and ever-so-wise judgments, when you see "blame the victim" as an underlying assumption in the comment, you see no real wisdom, you see only smug condescension and simple logical and moral incoherence and failure in the commenter's thinking
they have all the legal justification, all the enforcement apparatuses, and a dire existential reason to fight an open internet, and they still can't cope
so you think a small industrial sector: distribution of media, can do a better job?
it's a contest: open internet versus a dying economic distribution model. internet wins, easy
you obfuscate the connection, you encrypt it, you darknet it, you disguise it as ip packets on port 80, you make it look like smtp email, you make it look like put form responses on a webpage, you employ steganography: it's an arms race, and it's guerrilla warfare: they have to block everything, you just have to tunnel effectively. they can't cope, they can't keep up, they can't staff and fund the effort necessary to counteract the constant mercurial creative efforts none of us have even dreamed up yet. even if they shut down one method, ten more pop up they have to learn to cope with. its a hydra: cut off one head, eight more shoot up harder to cope with than before
then you package it in software any idiot who can point and click can use easily, and then you give it away for free
no, i'm sorry: the free and open internet wins this contest, really. the benefits of an unregulated internet, in terms of new technologies, new uses trumps, by far, according to anyone, including governments, pandering to one dying economic sector
Slashdot Mirror
when i heard "Lord Lucas" i thought "good gosh, george has done gone from genius in the '70s, to feeble hack in the 2000s, and now into outright dementia, confusing reality with his fantasy world, imagining himself senator palpatine himself, walking around in his bathrobe and hissing at ILM underlings and trying to vivisection visiting cartoon network executives with a torchiere lamp from the reception area"
they were talking about photons supplanting electrons in the '80s. and it was supposed to be imminent, right around the corner
AI, tablet computers, rocket cars, fusion power, natural speech computing:
eternally 10 years away
wake me up when it actually happens
ceres was considered a planet FOR HALF A CENTURY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)
they got over it WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS FOUND TO BE FULL OF SUCH MIDGETS
sound familiar? when the deluge of asteroids came in, people thought "uh, its going a little crazy with these planets here, lets lop off the pretenders". now, as they search and catalog the oort cloud, they find that pluto's experience is like ceres's experience in the asteroid belt: planet, until the deluge of neighbors, then demotion. its happened before, its happening again. there's no claim to pluto's status except nostalgia. they got over it in the 1800s, you can get over it now
pluto was discovered in in 1930, and kicked out of the club in 2006. that's a nice 75 year run, 50% more time than ceres
the only thing you have going for your clinging to pluto is adherence to tradition. that's not a good reason to say everything and its uncle is a planet, just to preserve pluto's status. its far easier to lop off pluto, consider us to have 4 (rocky) +4 (gas) planets, and be done with it. everything else is dwarf planet/ comet/ asteroid/ etc.: detritus, flotsam and jetsam, left over rocks, of lower import than the main 8
simple, easy, case closed
chill out hyper boy
unfortunately i only caught one hysteric with my stilted wording, but its a good one
i consider myself a moderate. of course liberals and conservatives have equal claim to adequacy, and idiocies abound in either direction. duh. you don't need to defend the obvious truth to every moron and troll you see on teh intarwebs, relax
this ridiculous argument is a good definition of conservatism versus liberalism, in the abstract
the idea that pluto is a planet or not has absolutely no relevance to anyone's life. it is also a pretty arbitrary and pointless issue: no one has any vested interests here. however, it is memorized as a child, and has a long tradition
therefore, i bet you if you asked a random sample of self-identified conservatives, in any country, they would choose pluto remain a planet. and i would also bet a random sample of self-identified liberals worldwide would choose that pluto not be a planet
because the only issue here is tradition. obsequious unthinking obedience to the past and a dimwitted anxiety at anything new, ie, conservatism, versus forward thinking logic and rationality, aka liberalism
if you grant me the other seven dwarves are planets: eris, makemake, haumea, sedna, orcus, 2001OR10, and quaoar
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/EightTNOs.png
and the other 100 or so such objects of pluto size likely to be found in the coming decades in the oort cloud
or keep it easy and say its not a planet
your choice, but the third graders of 2080 who have to memorize 80 planets might not be too happy with you
face it, pluto is chump change
it might be a useful technique during a zombie apocalypse, to broker some sort of peaceful agreement rather than BRAIIIIIIIINSSSSSSSS
i have to see Sting in his blue bird speedo in 3D? no thanks
and all chinese are robots
and all muslims are angry
and all europeans are communists
and all americans are warmongerers
etc...
your "thesis" is nothing but racism and ethnic and religious prejudice
the simple truth is, within any community, there is violence and sexual abuse (the amish have a higher rate of domestic abuse than outside the community), and there is peace and tranquility (the huao live in balance with their natural environment)
every single man woman and child, no matter what cultural background, has the potential for great evil, and great good. and to talk of cultural modifications is to deny personal responsibility, deny personal freedom, and traffic in the lamest racist and prejudicial thinking. you prejudge people: you see that, right?
that amish guy who cradled the murderer might go home and beat his wife. that huao 5 year old child might decide to embrace his father's killer instead. can you know if they choose otherwise? are their destinies written and unchanging and unyielding by your cultural relativistic bullshit?
give it up, at best you're naive and inexperienced of the world, at worst you're a racist, most definitely you're sheltered. go live in seoul, go live in beirut, go live in lagos, go live in buenos aires: in every human community in the world you will find saints and sinners and even tempered people and madmen and criminals and cops and hate-filled hearts and the loving
human personality and character is a statistical continuum across time and space. no culture or society manifests a skewed representation of one aspect of human behavior or another. to believe otherwise is to be a deluded inexperienced fool of human behavior in this world and throughout history
the amish live in peace beacuse they CAN: they are nestled deep in the american heartland. their philosophy is only possible because of their parasitical relationship with a larger entity: the united states. you know, the united states, remember gw bush, the warmongerer? the amish voted for him in vast majority. meanwhile, plop the amish in the middle of someplace like, oh, the caucasus mountains, and you will see one of two things: 1. instant extinction of the amish. 2. the emergence of the amish, known as the fierce war-makers: cultural "attitude" depends upon context. meanwhile, the huao, given protections from their neighbors like he amish enjoy in the usa, would have no desire to imperialistically go out and destroy others. the huao, above all things, just want to be left alone. so your judgments of these "cultures" exists in vacuum of considering the context in which they exist
i give you nathanael greene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanael_Greene
raised as a peace loving quaker, kicked out for avidly pursuing the science of war
i give you mustafa ataturk;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk
man of war who bequeathed his society peaceful reform
judge human beings as INDIVIDUALS, not as some racist subtype: all turks are imperialsts, all quakers are peace-loving: fucking racist thinking. your heart is full of prejudice
i'm saying simple human psychology trumps culture in determining human behavior
yes, truly bizarre
zzz
at best you're just cotton-headed naive, at worst your in danger of ethnocentric and prejudicial thinking
in the revolutionary war, quakers forbid military activities, even though many quakers assisted the revolution through furnishing many needed supplies. they were not able to actually fight and still remain in their religion. the society of friends valued strong education much more than any other people in the colonial days, and still does to this day. if a member of the society of friends took up arms they were immediately cast out of the quaker groups in any colony, state, or country
one such man, who was cast out of the religion he was born into, was nathanael greene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanael_Greene
why? because he became one of the greatest american generals to ever live, an extremely effective man of war. he studied voraciously tracts of war on his own initiative and self-educated himself on the methods of killing other men en masse to the point that it was his brilliant tactics and strategy that defeated the british in the south, and led directly to the conditions that resulted in cornwallis's stunning surrender, and the end of the revolutionary war
how is this possible given his upbringing? because his cultural upbringing is inconsequential, as is mine, as is yours, as is anyone's, on questions of basic human psychological potential for ANY human endeavour, violent or nonviolent, moral or immoral, just or injust
human psychology is human psychology is human psychology. the only voyage that matters is your voyage as an individual in this world, and it is the only morally and logically cohesive framework in which you can judge a person: as an individual
are you american? well, all americans are warlike monsters. are you muslim? well all muslims are unthinkingly obedient fools. are any of those statements fair? absolutely not, they are prejudicial. but this kind of thinking is a direct result of YOUR way of thinking, in which you hold arbitrary, minor and utterly inconsequential tribal boundaries as the master's of destiny
the truth: human psychology is a constant across time and space, and culture is but a tiny inconsequential tweak of it. there is nothing of the amish, of the canadian, of the brazilian, of the sikh, of the polish, of whatever, that is somehow unique only to that culture, society, or people and somehow determines their fate in such a way that it overrides basic human psychology
to say that the response on a community level has any meaning for the psychology of the individual
are the amish robots? they feel no emotion?
culture modifies basic human psychology. but human psychology never changes
you are not describing western culture, or judeochristian culture, or american culture, or southern culture, or whatever you think are describing
you are describing human nature. its fundamental human psychology that is in play here, not the "mythology" of one group
there is not a society that has ever existed on this planet, or will ever exist, that the quote above does not apply to
know human nature for what it is: the good, the bad, and the ugly (yes, i intended that ;-). don't hold one culture or society guilty for what all societies and cultures are guilty of
of becoming the monster you fight
and you don't even see it
but i take exception with a phrase in your last sentence
"good to know that you are in control"
your actions do not sound like someone in control. in fact, you were out of control. you say so yourself
"It felt empowering afterward but at the time I was too terrified horrified and enraged to notice"
again i'm glad you stood up for yourself, but recognize that this temporary rage of yours was not really a good thing to be driven to. absolutely necessary, yes, but not good. not everything we are driven and compelled to do in this life are good actions we should be happy happened. not that i see you taking joy in the event, but there are others out there who might have enjoyed it
as an allegory, it is entirely appropriate and reasonable to kill someone entering your house in the dead of night: you have no idea what his intentions are, and they're obviously not good. however, a truly moral person takes no sense of joy in the unfortunately necessary action, only sadness
when you take pleasure in the infliction of pain on others, no matter the context or scenario, you begin to become the bully you are fighting
i'm not saying you took such joy, but i'm merely using your scenario as a way to jump off and make a deeper point here
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1531634&cid=30974502
we need to tow australia up to the northern hemisphere, give it someone to talk to and play with. it's kind of getting cabin fever down there in the nothingness and kind of losing its mind. all it has to talk to is new zealand, and we all know what that's worth
"it's a trap!"
mainly because iran employs a diabolical tactic that no american interceptor can defeat: if a missile of their's is shot down, they merely photoshop some more:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html
however, i would encourage american military planners to adopt iran's own dark tactics against it, and photoshop lots of missile interceptors. that should do the trick
and if the combined powers of fark photoshop and 4chan were militarized, we could bury iranian internet warriors in sheer volume of photoshopped missiles. throw in some lolcats, general ackbar, gold paint sniffer dude, and that guy riding a missile from "dr. strangelove", and iranian missiles will be decisively defeated
you mean voyeuristic fetishists, then yes, they've won
but if by terrorists you mean militant muslim fundamentalists, then no, the goal of global caliphate does not include the violation of the self-conscious squeamishness of fat people
a cheerful environmentalist superhero
but after the accident, he turned to bitter rants
nowadays superbanana can be found under the highway overpass, yelling at tourists on segways, blustering about the threat of hipster retards, drunk on 100% organic free trade prison hooch
take the subway
walk to work
result: all car accidents successfully avoided
"Thanks to Tim Berners-Lee, you can now sit in your underwear in Omaha and learn French from a tutor in Paris."
this is disgusting. i'm not sure what "learn french" is slang for, but i have a clue since its done in your underwear "in omaha": obviously some variation on shibari japanese rope bondage. how puerile. and i don't think slashdot needs to be the place for yet more attention for that whore paris hilton, no matter that there is a tutor in her, or whatever is in her, has anything or anyone not been in her?
and i don't know who this Tim Berners-Lee fellow is but he's obviously some sort of pornography-addicted pervert. yet more proof the internet has been warped form the noble intentions of whoever started the internet. probably some nice science fellow working trying to better mankind with some sort of high minded science research, not this Tim Berners-Lee degenerate mentioned here
how can we stop this madness?
this is a common problem with people making quick judgments
like "she deserved to be raped, because she was wearing skimpy clothing"
if you are transgressed against, it doesn't matter how foolish you behave before or after the transgression. let me repeat that, since so many obviously don't understand the point: it doesn't matter AT ALL how lame the victim is of any crime, before or after the crime took place. there is still a crime that took place, and it was perpetrated by someone else. and if the criminal wasn't there, the victim would not have been violated. the ONLY blame for ANY crime is the criminal, not the victim, no matter how unsympathetic the victim. please, people understand this and develop some vague moral compass to your life: the ONLY blame for ANY crime is the criminal, not the victim, no matter how unsympathetic the victim. let it sink in, understand this really is the only logically coherent understanding of crime and punishment
so no woman, even if she walks nude into a biker bar, deserves to be raped, and if she is, it is the rapist's fault and the rapist's fault alone. this is the only morally coherent judgment possible
and no driver, no matter how lame and idiotic, deserves to be in a car with faulty features. and if the car accelerates due to toyota's error, toyota, and toyota alone is to blame, no matter how badly the driver tries to mitigate the situation, or whatever they did preceding the situation
if the driver was drunk, on meth, watching a dvd, and texting, and being blown by a hooker, and their car accelerated due to toyota manufacturing, and the driver's response was simply to cry and wet their pants, despite even the most obvious of dozens of possible responses, the simple and only moral truth possible for you to consider is that toyota, and toyota alone, is to blame. examine the logic. understand why. stop being so quick to judge and understand why the criminal NEVER shares blame with his victim
so in all these slashdotter's arch and ever-so-wise judgments, when you see "blame the victim" as an underlying assumption in the comment, you see no real wisdom, you see only smug condescension and simple logical and moral incoherence and failure in the commenter's thinking
they have all the legal justification, all the enforcement apparatuses, and a dire existential reason to fight an open internet, and they still can't cope
so you think a small industrial sector: distribution of media, can do a better job?
it's a contest: open internet versus a dying economic distribution model. internet wins, easy
you obfuscate the connection, you encrypt it, you darknet it, you disguise it as ip packets on port 80, you make it look like smtp email, you make it look like put form responses on a webpage, you employ steganography: it's an arms race, and it's guerrilla warfare: they have to block everything, you just have to tunnel effectively. they can't cope, they can't keep up, they can't staff and fund the effort necessary to counteract the constant mercurial creative efforts none of us have even dreamed up yet. even if they shut down one method, ten more pop up they have to learn to cope with. its a hydra: cut off one head, eight more shoot up harder to cope with than before
then you package it in software any idiot who can point and click can use easily, and then you give it away for free
no, i'm sorry: the free and open internet wins this contest, really. the benefits of an unregulated internet, in terms of new technologies, new uses trumps, by far, according to anyone, including governments, pandering to one dying economic sector