the real hysteria comes from thinking "omfg! general societal freedoms and 500 years of legal and philosophical traditions is destroyed because of airplane security!"
your understanding of what your freedom really is is crude and weak if you think it dangles by a thread
that's the real fear and wimpiness right there
have some faith in the strength of your philosphical and cultural institutions and grow a backbone. airport scanners are not the end of fucking western civilization and every freedom you hold dear. THAT'S hysteria
if ipv6 makes you more trackable, or not, or if there is any privacy issues with ipv4 versus ipv6, this is apparently a complex question whose answer someone a lot wiser than me on the subject matter should study. maybe ipv6 is neutral, i don't know. but whatever the answer is, it decides the fate of ipv4. because i and many others will fight ipv6 if it indeed allows for more centralized authority. or maybe ipv6 is neutral, in which case i don't care either way
its only disingenuous when you ignore some intangibles and inflate others
one could say that the real hysteria on the subject matter here is those who think prudent security precautions is the death knell of our freedoms. a true understanding of our freedoms results in a deeper faith that they aren't really being threatened in any wider contexts than simply getting on a damn airplane
a few governmental initiatives due to genuine terrorism in limited contexts can not erase 500 years of philosophical, legal, and cultural trends. meanwhile, a weak, low iq, crude understanding of our freedoms imagines them dangling precariously by a thread all the fucking time. that's the real hysteria here. have some faith, grow a backbone, grow concerned about your freedoms when they are REALLY threatened
plenty of terrorist plots have succeeded. plenty of terrorist plots have been foiled. the struggle goes on. stopping terrorists will never be 100% successful. but ceasing the struggle simply results in the terrorist plot success rate going to 100%. that's acceptable to you?
there's no other factors your vast genius-like mind can conceive of when evaluating risk?
do you have alzheimer's? did you miss my posts above where i delineated the simple inescapable logic of how moronic it is to take static quantity of deaths as your only guide?
no, you simply changed the subject. now you repost your initial point. which i already demolished as an argument in previous posts. you changed the subject because you know you i have a point. so think some more on the points i have shown you, or even better yet, be a man and admit when i have shown you something you did not consider and that perhaps your opinion is ill-conceived
your initial statement was that worrying about terrorism is just hysteria and less of a concern than car accidents. i will take your ceasing of that argument and the taking up of new subject matter as a tacit acknowledgement on your part that you accept you are wrong on your INITIAL statement above. good day
speaking honestly from a position of ignorance on the issue: is there anything about the ipv6 spec that lends itself better to censorship and control? in other words, could china or iran do their authoritarian bullshit easier with ipv6 than with ipv4?
depending upon the answer, i will either support ipv6 adaptation, or fight giving up ipv4 until the bitter end
imagine a hypothetical disease whose mortality rate is exponential
now you meet a guy who says "i refused to be terrified by the miniscule chance of being killed by this disease, since its only killed 10 people out of 6.5 billion!"....so far, duh. when of course, unopposed, the disease threatens to kill millions. its not fear and hysteria that moves one to realize the potency threat, but simple extrapolation. meanwhile, a static analysis of only historical deaths is simply stupid and disingenuous: of course a disease, at the point of starting, only has killed a few. but to only use that in your analysis is simply dumb. if the disease is genuinely shown to be growing exponentially, a pure static analysis of historical deaths is simply illogical and a pointless examination of the real nature of the threat, correct? the disease is obviously worrisome, by any logical analysis
now, historically speaking, is terrorism emanating from al qaeda and its wannabes on the rise or on the decline? therefore, is an analysis of only historical deaths intellectually valid?
now imagine the disease is successfully contained through a long hard expensive effort
now the man says "why did they spend so much time and money and worry on that disease? so much fear and hysteria. it only killed 20,000 people, the chance of dying was obviously extremely low, not substantiating at all the expensive effort undertaken to fight it"
when of course the disease only killed 20,000 people PRECISELY BECAUSE people spent so much time and money and worry on the disease. so what is the value of this man's obliviousness? what is the value of your obliviousness?
in both instances, the man is a moron, with low intelligence and poor analytical skills
if you fail to see how terrorism, unopposed, can't destabilize regions of the globe, if not the whole globe into war (what was the STRATEGIC AIM of the mumbai attack on civilians last year again?), if you can't see the solid determination of terrorists to kill as many civilians as possible by the most devastating and disgusting means possible, you are not "unterrified", you're an idiot. remember: world war one was triggered by a small group of nationalist fanatics in sarajevo:
this is precisely what al qaeda and the wannabes are trying to achieve with things like the mumbai attack. world war one killed millions. terrorists are pounding right now very, very hard along the same kind of geopolitical fault lines that existed in world war i, in a serious effort to start world war iii. that's what they WANT. they are already at war, they want to pull the whole world into their struggle
again, in case you missed it: a false sense of complacency is JUST AS DANGEROUS as a false sense of alarm. the only logical approach is a prudent rational analaysis of the potency of the threat. a prudent rational analysis of the threat posed by terrorism means we devote a lot of time, money, and worry to the effort. NOT FEAR. of course there are hysterics in this world. but the existence of hysterics about al qaeda does not mean there are not also people who have LOGICALLY AND PRUDENTLY come to realize the potent threat terrorism poses. to group both people into "just a bunch of hysterics" again is nothing but a demonstration of your poor analysis and reasoning skills about the world you live in
i have tried to convince you of the threat terrorism poses with logic and reason in this post, but most importantly, notice that there is no fear or hysterics in my thoughts as presented to you. i am merely logically explaining the reality of what terrorism really means, that you seem unable to grasp. so can you honestly say that only fear is the motivation behind the effort and time and money pointed against al qaeda and its wannabes? its really just mass hysteria to you?
then you suffer from a dangerous false complacency just as dangerous as any false alarmism that you hold in contempt
i mean, pick any cause of death: pancreatic cancer, slips and falls, drug overdoses, etc...
you can say about all these kinds of death: "well, more people die due to car accidents..." so therefore we shouldn't care about other causes of death?
quantity of dead alone, as the only determinant to how much attention we pay to a cause of death, is demonstrating on your part poor reasoning skills. you can't imagine other factors that go into determining how much attention we pay to a cause of death?
something like terrorism is caused by other people ON PURPOSE. this makes it pretty serious, unlike blameless agendaless accidents or blameless mindless disease. when a committed organization has announced their desire to kill as many people as possible, and shown real capability and intent and follow-thru, that's a big problem. a little creativity results in something like 9/11. does anyone doubt that if an al qaeda asshole got a hold of a suitcase nuke they wouldn't set it off in the middle of a major western city? is it panic and hysteria to worry about that possibility? no, its simply prudent. in fact, an attitude like yours: "whatever," is UNDERreacting. there is just as much danger in a false sense of complacency as there is in a false alarm. the only attitude that makes sense is a prudent logical analysis, and that prudent logical analysis means you take the threat posed by al qaeda and the wannabes very seriously. because they most certainly intend as much death as they can get away with
terrorism isn't like cancer or car accidents. you need to pay a lot of attention to it: the cause is someone else, and the intent is death. a committed group wants to kill you, and they'll kill millions if given the means and opportunity. so it really does make a lot of sense to focus on al qaeda and the wannabes a lot of time and attention, and it is in fact perfectly proportional to the nature of the threat, since it is composed of creative committed organized disciplined and determined human beings, trying to kill you. totally different threat than accidents and disease: you can pretty much gauge things like road conditions for car accidents, air temperature for disease, etc., and come up with a mathematical statistical model for the kinds of death you are faced with
but when your killer is other human beings, and you see an escalation in mayhem and murder and threats, as we do today in the west AND the muslim world (don't forget that the most dead from groups like al qaeda are muslims), then you pay ALOT of attention to the threat: it doesn't follow statistics. it could be a hundred dead one year, a million the next, unless you get a handle on things. destabilize certain regions with terrorism and you get a war. a war is how many dead? still sound like baseless fear to react so seriously to al qaeda and the wannabes?
there's nothing wimpy or fearful about it. of course, there are hysterical people who are overreacting. but they are just as stupid as people like you, who are clearly UNDERreacting. you think its "wimpy". this is low iq, an inability to adequately and logically ascertain the venomous potential in a threat. to you, only statistics counts as what is a threat to you. one dimensional idiocy
a logical, prudent, levelheaded analysis of the threat posed by the rise of militant fundamentalist assholes hellbent on killing a bunch of people means we should pay them a lot of attention and throw a lot of money at the problem. really. no fear panic hysteria or wimpiness in any of that analysis, simple logic and reason
will the cable/ satellite industry fight this?
on
Intel Launches Wi-Di
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
if you can broadcast a signal to every set in your house, or even your entire apartment floor, then there goes a bunch of lucrative descrambler box fees. then again, they can all only show one channel at a time. however, media companies seem to all be losing income nowadays, and have all taken a hostile attitude towards new technology. they seem to need very little reason, however slim and irrational, to pick a fight with new technology
of course, the future is all streaming media over the internet, mostly on demand and mostly free, so they're all fucked
the idea that distributors (oh, you thought this was about artists?) need to permanently derive an income because they once had an oligopoly is madness. no, they will die away, and artists will make cash directly from their fans via ancillary revenues (concerts, ads, endorsements, personalized content, etc)
recorded music will serve the same function that free radio once did in a previous era. a previous era that is dead. its dead, you do understand that, right?
furthermore, there's no law or enforcement that is needed for this reality to come into existence. it will just happen. its already happened. it will happen, in fact, no matter how many laws or how many billions the dying distributors spend on legal enforcement and padding legislators pockets to stop it from happening. idiots: laws bend to technological change, technological change does not bend to laws. study your damn history, and don't for a minute continue to believe your thousands of lawyers can defeat millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and most importantly POOR teenagers. deal with it
the world is changing. you have no ability to stop it. all that is left for you to do is understand that the old economic model is dead, and accept it. or don't, and waste you're time and money on a lost cause. morons
#1: you'll be waiting decades for the security madness to die down. that which drives islamic terrorism is a problem that will take a long time to unravel
#2: the reasons driving is more attractive than the airplane still exists even if there is no security at airports. and just wait until you experience the scenic carefree joy of taking amtrak from DOWNTOWN new york city to DOWNTOWN montreal
for what the bad do. no security restriction will stop the pirate, it will only frustrate the nonpirate, and turn them into pirates
if you lock me down geographically, if you put a sunset clause in my hardware, if i experience bugs emanating from your security faults, if my media is inaccessible in certain times/ places... all you do is convince me that the pirate material is more attractive, because it has no such restrictions
eventually, the question becomes, what am i paying for?
i'm paying for more restrictions. and that's it
the other guy, who is paying nothing, is getting the same material as me, without any restrictions
people are concerned about the issue of terrorism on airlines, so there's money and effort pushed towards this problem. it doesn't mean the effort or the technology is effective, its more like a groping in the dark to get something done, and more importantly, the perception that people are trying to solve the problem, regardless of how intractable the problem is
now a lot of people on slashdot might gripe and groan about lack of effectiveness, but you have to think about this from a political perspective: effectiveness is less important than perception that you are trying to be effective
that is, your average citizen, concerned about terrorism on airplanes, doesn't want to see zero screening and the pat answer "well, we have no effective technology to screen for this, so take your chances". then they get angry. they want to see barking dogs, stern men in uniform with stun guns, and people passing through electronic sniffing doodads. even if its not going to prevent something like the crotchbomber
actually preventing bombings isn't an issue, perception of an effort to try to prevent such bombings is the issue
so all of the inevitable griping on slashdot about technological ineffectiveness is completely besides the point. you are 100% correct. but it doesn't mean we won't get millions spent on ineffective technology
peace of mind, though resting on a flimsy foundation, is better than no peace of mind at all
so we need a global police force. this is obviously superior to one country being the world's police force, right? so interpol in the usa, and everywhere else, obviously makes sense
however, you have american nationalist retards who believe its some sort of horrible insult to sovereignty. its not, morons, its just common sense in a complicated world. so get your heads out of your asses, its not a secret plot to destroy the usa. get your paranoid schizophrenia treated and take more medication please
abstract: paper archives from the 1900s are still useable today, the only barrier being language conventions of that time period. additionally, digital records from the 2100s are usable today, due to mandated standardization of file formats and the prevalence of cheap, eternal nanoholographic storage. however, the 2000s consisted mainly of magnetic and optical storage on flimsy media. additionally, file formats were often proprietary, quirky, and ever changing due to the rapidly evolving nature of digital technology from that early era. if the actual media itself wasn't degraded, the file format itself was usually forgotten in a generation or two. finally, many early groundbreaking sites of the primitive internet are lost to posterity simply because they were designed to be ephemeral and ever changing, and no one thought to take archival snapshots of their content. it didn't seem important at the time. and so, the early decades of the digital age, when many fundamental crucial decisions were made that have defined our culture today, are forever lost to us
the propaganda that iran, china, cuba, etc., put out as an excuse as they tweak their filters and install technological "improvements" for disallowing freedom of expression on the internet
mainly because i'm not really interested in his evangelical christianity
but what i wouldn't do is go see his movie, knowing what i was getting into, and then once outside the movie, complain about being preached at with political messages. well, what the hell did i expect?
you knew what you were getting into. its disingenuous of you to complain about the environmental message of the movie, when you could have sniffed it out from the context of the movie 20 miles away
james cameron very much intended to provoke a pro-environmentalist agenda with his movie. and? so fucking what? how do you suppose that james cameron could get out of bed in the morning during filming and editing, be passionate and motivated about the movie he was making, and at the same time, be castrated of one of the main reasons he wanted to make the movie in the first place by removing the message he wants to convey? its his movie right?
if james cameron is going to make a movie, he is going to make the movie he wants to make. if you tell him to make a movie watered down of any message important to him, i would expect him to simply not make the movie, if he has any passions or principles about him. meanwhile, if you don't like his politics, simply don't watch his damn movie. but don't expect that removing the motivation from the artist to create his work, that the artist will still want to make his work
look: i don't like kirk cameron's evangelical beliefs. but i don't believe i can snap my fingers and kirk cameron will still be motivated to make movies devoid of any of his passions or principles. instead, i simply won't watch kirk cameron's movies
you can't have james cameron's artistic output without james cameron's passions and principles. deal with it. and if you can't deal with it, don't watch his movies
Slashdot Mirror
the real hysteria comes from thinking "omfg! general societal freedoms and 500 years of legal and philosophical traditions is destroyed because of airplane security!"
your understanding of what your freedom really is is crude and weak if you think it dangles by a thread
that's the real fear and wimpiness right there
have some faith in the strength of your philosphical and cultural institutions and grow a backbone. airport scanners are not the end of fucking western civilization and every freedom you hold dear. THAT'S hysteria
if ipv6 makes you more trackable, or not, or if there is any privacy issues with ipv4 versus ipv6, this is apparently a complex question whose answer someone a lot wiser than me on the subject matter should study. maybe ipv6 is neutral, i don't know. but whatever the answer is, it decides the fate of ipv4. because i and many others will fight ipv6 if it indeed allows for more centralized authority. or maybe ipv6 is neutral, in which case i don't care either way
then fuck ipv6
and welcome to the age of subnets
always includes intangibles
its only disingenuous when you ignore some intangibles and inflate others
one could say that the real hysteria on the subject matter here is those who think prudent security precautions is the death knell of our freedoms. a true understanding of our freedoms results in a deeper faith that they aren't really being threatened in any wider contexts than simply getting on a damn airplane
a few governmental initiatives due to genuine terrorism in limited contexts can not erase 500 years of philosophical, legal, and cultural trends. meanwhile, a weak, low iq, crude understanding of our freedoms imagines them dangling precariously by a thread all the fucking time. that's the real hysteria here. have some faith, grow a backbone, grow concerned about your freedoms when they are REALLY threatened
is always relevant
and it is preventable
plenty of terrorist plots have succeeded. plenty of terrorist plots have been foiled. the struggle goes on. stopping terrorists will never be 100% successful. but ceasing the struggle simply results in the terrorist plot success rate going to 100%. that's acceptable to you?
there's no other factors your vast genius-like mind can conceive of when evaluating risk?
do you have alzheimer's? did you miss my posts above where i delineated the simple inescapable logic of how moronic it is to take static quantity of deaths as your only guide?
no, you simply changed the subject. now you repost your initial point. which i already demolished as an argument in previous posts. you changed the subject because you know you i have a point. so think some more on the points i have shown you, or even better yet, be a man and admit when i have shown you something you did not consider and that perhaps your opinion is ill-conceived
your initial statement was that worrying about terrorism is just hysteria and less of a concern than car accidents. i will take your ceasing of that argument and the taking up of new subject matter as a tacit acknowledgement on your part that you accept you are wrong on your INITIAL statement above. good day
speaking honestly from a position of ignorance on the issue: is there anything about the ipv6 spec that lends itself better to censorship and control? in other words, could china or iran do their authoritarian bullshit easier with ipv6 than with ipv4?
depending upon the answer, i will either support ipv6 adaptation, or fight giving up ipv4 until the bitter end
allegory time:
imagine a hypothetical disease whose mortality rate is exponential
now you meet a guy who says "i refused to be terrified by the miniscule chance of being killed by this disease, since its only killed 10 people out of 6.5 billion!" ....so far, duh. when of course, unopposed, the disease threatens to kill millions. its not fear and hysteria that moves one to realize the potency threat, but simple extrapolation. meanwhile, a static analysis of only historical deaths is simply stupid and disingenuous: of course a disease, at the point of starting, only has killed a few. but to only use that in your analysis is simply dumb. if the disease is genuinely shown to be growing exponentially, a pure static analysis of historical deaths is simply illogical and a pointless examination of the real nature of the threat, correct? the disease is obviously worrisome, by any logical analysis
now, historically speaking, is terrorism emanating from al qaeda and its wannabes on the rise or on the decline? therefore, is an analysis of only historical deaths intellectually valid?
now imagine the disease is successfully contained through a long hard expensive effort
now the man says "why did they spend so much time and money and worry on that disease? so much fear and hysteria. it only killed 20,000 people, the chance of dying was obviously extremely low, not substantiating at all the expensive effort undertaken to fight it"
when of course the disease only killed 20,000 people PRECISELY BECAUSE people spent so much time and money and worry on the disease. so what is the value of this man's obliviousness? what is the value of your obliviousness?
in both instances, the man is a moron, with low intelligence and poor analytical skills
if you fail to see how terrorism, unopposed, can't destabilize regions of the globe, if not the whole globe into war (what was the STRATEGIC AIM of the mumbai attack on civilians last year again?), if you can't see the solid determination of terrorists to kill as many civilians as possible by the most devastating and disgusting means possible, you are not "unterrified", you're an idiot. remember: world war one was triggered by a small group of nationalist fanatics in sarajevo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Consequences
this is precisely what al qaeda and the wannabes are trying to achieve with things like the mumbai attack. world war one killed millions. terrorists are pounding right now very, very hard along the same kind of geopolitical fault lines that existed in world war i, in a serious effort to start world war iii. that's what they WANT. they are already at war, they want to pull the whole world into their struggle
again, in case you missed it: a false sense of complacency is JUST AS DANGEROUS as a false sense of alarm. the only logical approach is a prudent rational analaysis of the potency of the threat. a prudent rational analysis of the threat posed by terrorism means we devote a lot of time, money, and worry to the effort. NOT FEAR. of course there are hysterics in this world. but the existence of hysterics about al qaeda does not mean there are not also people who have LOGICALLY AND PRUDENTLY come to realize the potent threat terrorism poses. to group both people into "just a bunch of hysterics" again is nothing but a demonstration of your poor analysis and reasoning skills about the world you live in
i have tried to convince you of the threat terrorism poses with logic and reason in this post, but most importantly, notice that there is no fear or hysterics in my thoughts as presented to you. i am merely logically explaining the reality of what terrorism really means, that you seem unable to grasp. so can you honestly say that only fear is the motivation behind the effort and time and money pointed against al qaeda and its wannabes? its really just mass hysteria to you?
then you suffer from a dangerous false complacency just as dangerous as any false alarmism that you hold in contempt
i mean, pick any cause of death: pancreatic cancer, slips and falls, drug overdoses, etc...
you can say about all these kinds of death: "well, more people die due to car accidents..." so therefore we shouldn't care about other causes of death?
quantity of dead alone, as the only determinant to how much attention we pay to a cause of death, is demonstrating on your part poor reasoning skills. you can't imagine other factors that go into determining how much attention we pay to a cause of death?
something like terrorism is caused by other people ON PURPOSE. this makes it pretty serious, unlike blameless agendaless accidents or blameless mindless disease. when a committed organization has announced their desire to kill as many people as possible, and shown real capability and intent and follow-thru, that's a big problem. a little creativity results in something like 9/11. does anyone doubt that if an al qaeda asshole got a hold of a suitcase nuke they wouldn't set it off in the middle of a major western city? is it panic and hysteria to worry about that possibility? no, its simply prudent. in fact, an attitude like yours: "whatever," is UNDERreacting. there is just as much danger in a false sense of complacency as there is in a false alarm. the only attitude that makes sense is a prudent logical analysis, and that prudent logical analysis means you take the threat posed by al qaeda and the wannabes very seriously. because they most certainly intend as much death as they can get away with
terrorism isn't like cancer or car accidents. you need to pay a lot of attention to it: the cause is someone else, and the intent is death. a committed group wants to kill you, and they'll kill millions if given the means and opportunity. so it really does make a lot of sense to focus on al qaeda and the wannabes a lot of time and attention, and it is in fact perfectly proportional to the nature of the threat, since it is composed of creative committed organized disciplined and determined human beings, trying to kill you. totally different threat than accidents and disease: you can pretty much gauge things like road conditions for car accidents, air temperature for disease, etc., and come up with a mathematical statistical model for the kinds of death you are faced with
but when your killer is other human beings, and you see an escalation in mayhem and murder and threats, as we do today in the west AND the muslim world (don't forget that the most dead from groups like al qaeda are muslims), then you pay ALOT of attention to the threat: it doesn't follow statistics. it could be a hundred dead one year, a million the next, unless you get a handle on things. destabilize certain regions with terrorism and you get a war. a war is how many dead? still sound like baseless fear to react so seriously to al qaeda and the wannabes?
there's nothing wimpy or fearful about it. of course, there are hysterical people who are overreacting. but they are just as stupid as people like you, who are clearly UNDERreacting. you think its "wimpy". this is low iq, an inability to adequately and logically ascertain the venomous potential in a threat. to you, only statistics counts as what is a threat to you. one dimensional idiocy
a logical, prudent, levelheaded analysis of the threat posed by the rise of militant fundamentalist assholes hellbent on killing a bunch of people means we should pay them a lot of attention and throw a lot of money at the problem. really. no fear panic hysteria or wimpiness in any of that analysis, simple logic and reason
if you can broadcast a signal to every set in your house, or even your entire apartment floor, then there goes a bunch of lucrative descrambler box fees. then again, they can all only show one channel at a time. however, media companies seem to all be losing income nowadays, and have all taken a hostile attitude towards new technology. they seem to need very little reason, however slim and irrational, to pick a fight with new technology
of course, the future is all streaming media over the internet, mostly on demand and mostly free, so they're all fucked
the idea that distributors (oh, you thought this was about artists?) need to permanently derive an income because they once had an oligopoly is madness. no, they will die away, and artists will make cash directly from their fans via ancillary revenues (concerts, ads, endorsements, personalized content, etc)
recorded music will serve the same function that free radio once did in a previous era. a previous era that is dead. its dead, you do understand that, right?
furthermore, there's no law or enforcement that is needed for this reality to come into existence. it will just happen. its already happened. it will happen, in fact, no matter how many laws or how many billions the dying distributors spend on legal enforcement and padding legislators pockets to stop it from happening. idiots: laws bend to technological change, technological change does not bend to laws. study your damn history, and don't for a minute continue to believe your thousands of lawyers can defeat millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and most importantly POOR teenagers. deal with it
the world is changing. you have no ability to stop it. all that is left for you to do is understand that the old economic model is dead, and accept it. or don't, and waste you're time and money on a lost cause. morons
#1: you'll be waiting decades for the security madness to die down. that which drives islamic terrorism is a problem that will take a long time to unravel
#2: the reasons driving is more attractive than the airplane still exists even if there is no security at airports. and just wait until you experience the scenic carefree joy of taking amtrak from DOWNTOWN new york city to DOWNTOWN montreal
the bloatware partisan
for what the bad do. no security restriction will stop the pirate, it will only frustrate the nonpirate, and turn them into pirates
if you lock me down geographically, if you put a sunset clause in my hardware, if i experience bugs emanating from your security faults, if my media is inaccessible in certain times/ places... all you do is convince me that the pirate material is more attractive, because it has no such restrictions
eventually, the question becomes, what am i paying for?
i'm paying for more restrictions. and that's it
the other guy, who is paying nothing, is getting the same material as me, without any restrictions
its a no brainer
people are concerned about the issue of terrorism on airlines, so there's money and effort pushed towards this problem. it doesn't mean the effort or the technology is effective, its more like a groping in the dark to get something done, and more importantly, the perception that people are trying to solve the problem, regardless of how intractable the problem is
now a lot of people on slashdot might gripe and groan about lack of effectiveness, but you have to think about this from a political perspective: effectiveness is less important than perception that you are trying to be effective
that is, your average citizen, concerned about terrorism on airplanes, doesn't want to see zero screening and the pat answer "well, we have no effective technology to screen for this, so take your chances". then they get angry. they want to see barking dogs, stern men in uniform with stun guns, and people passing through electronic sniffing doodads. even if its not going to prevent something like the crotchbomber
actually preventing bombings isn't an issue, perception of an effort to try to prevent such bombings is the issue
so all of the inevitable griping on slashdot about technological ineffectiveness is completely besides the point. you are 100% correct. but it doesn't mean we won't get millions spent on ineffective technology
peace of mind, though resting on a flimsy foundation, is better than no peace of mind at all
speeding fines in finland are based on percentage of your last tax return
so if you are poor, your speeding fine is a pittance. but if you are the chairman of nokia, its over $100K
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm
for "the ring ii"
so we need a global police force. this is obviously superior to one country being the world's police force, right? so interpol in the usa, and everywhere else, obviously makes sense
however, you have american nationalist retards who believe its some sort of horrible insult to sovereignty. its not, morons, its just common sense in a complicated world. so get your heads out of your asses, its not a secret plot to destroy the usa. get your paranoid schizophrenia treated and take more medication please
in the future, no one will know DRM even existed
"the lost century: the millennial archive hole"
abstract: paper archives from the 1900s are still useable today, the only barrier being language conventions of that time period. additionally, digital records from the 2100s are usable today, due to mandated standardization of file formats and the prevalence of cheap, eternal nanoholographic storage. however, the 2000s consisted mainly of magnetic and optical storage on flimsy media. additionally, file formats were often proprietary, quirky, and ever changing due to the rapidly evolving nature of digital technology from that early era. if the actual media itself wasn't degraded, the file format itself was usually forgotten in a generation or two. finally, many early groundbreaking sites of the primitive internet are lost to posterity simply because they were designed to be ephemeral and ever changing, and no one thought to take archival snapshots of their content. it didn't seem important at the time. and so, the early decades of the digital age, when many fundamental crucial decisions were made that have defined our culture today, are forever lost to us
some exoarcheology student in a couple hundred years is going to make the find of his life
the propaganda that iran, china, cuba, etc., put out as an excuse as they tweak their filters and install technological "improvements" for disallowing freedom of expression on the internet
that is, kirk cameron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Cameron
mainly because i'm not really interested in his evangelical christianity
but what i wouldn't do is go see his movie, knowing what i was getting into, and then once outside the movie, complain about being preached at with political messages. well, what the hell did i expect?
you knew what you were getting into. its disingenuous of you to complain about the environmental message of the movie, when you could have sniffed it out from the context of the movie 20 miles away
james cameron very much intended to provoke a pro-environmentalist agenda with his movie. and? so fucking what? how do you suppose that james cameron could get out of bed in the morning during filming and editing, be passionate and motivated about the movie he was making, and at the same time, be castrated of one of the main reasons he wanted to make the movie in the first place by removing the message he wants to convey? its his movie right?
if james cameron is going to make a movie, he is going to make the movie he wants to make. if you tell him to make a movie watered down of any message important to him, i would expect him to simply not make the movie, if he has any passions or principles about him. meanwhile, if you don't like his politics, simply don't watch his damn movie. but don't expect that removing the motivation from the artist to create his work, that the artist will still want to make his work
look: i don't like kirk cameron's evangelical beliefs. but i don't believe i can snap my fingers and kirk cameron will still be motivated to make movies devoid of any of his passions or principles. instead, i simply won't watch kirk cameron's movies
you can't have james cameron's artistic output without james cameron's passions and principles. deal with it. and if you can't deal with it, don't watch his movies
this guy hasn't been relevant since the early 1990s
its now the early 2010s
2010s!
holy crap... monday morning, january 4th, 20fucking10
a new decade
jesus, only now is it sinking in