yes, i am indeed 100% against the theocratic GOVERNMENT of iran, not its people
and you might have noticed a teensy weensy happening in iran in june of this year, in which the people of that country pretty much spoke out loudly in disfavor of their illegitimate government. you could call it a rant on their part;-)
so if that makes me a moron, so be it, i embrace the label. that i stand with the iranian people, whom i love for their spirit, then i am happy to be a moron in your eyes for that
"Client/server is a communications model. Cloud computing is a business model, a management model, a deployment model, etc... You might as well say "networking" is the real concept, and that fancy "cloud computing" is just a PHB term for "networking". Let's just call cloud "computer networking!""
so when the PHBs of the 1980s were deploying client/ server based systems, they were concerned with simply ethernet cable and routers? they weren't thinking at all about their business model, management model, or deployment model?
look, if i wave my hands fast enough, you can't see what i'm really talking about... zzz
"A time lens can focus a chunk of time to a point, rather like a normal lens focuses light rays."
no, its not LIKE a normal lens, it IS a normal lens. kind of like how "cloud computing" is the same client/ server model of decades past, a "times lens" is basically, uh, gee, a lens. but made sexy by introducing scifi fantasy terminology for the sake of grabbing attention
the term "netbook" comes from the fact that because they are small lightweight laptops, they are much more prone to contamination than regular laptops. therefore, they require the use of hairnets during operation. why this is true requires profound technological expertise i don't have the time to educate you fools on in this venue, but suffice it to say that it has to do with the cube of the static charge carried by the contamination proportionate to the surface area of the hard drive
and i am flabbergasted and horrified evey time i see someone using their netbooks without the mandatory use of a proper hairnet. just one little hair sliding in a crack in between the keys on the keyboard! you fools
Loving Troll Father, we thank you for this cornucopia of naivete, And for all your blessings of the easily duped to us. Lord Troll Jesus, come and be our guest, And take your place at this trollish table of bounty. Holy Troll Spirit, as the trolled fool feeds our trollish pride, So we pray you would nourish our trollish souls. Amen.
so beeth the prayer of the troll upon a successful catch
by one of the dozens of cameras now sometimes outnumbering the number of protestors at rallies and marches
and then can be taken to the media, where the sensational story will bring even more attention to the cause of the protestors
and then can be litigated, drawing months and years of further media attention and interest
in other words, any smart police department isn't interested in doing anything you suggest, because it massively backfires. and if the police are that stupid to use such subterfuge, then all they are doing is giving the cause the protestors are agitating for massive prolonged media interest. in which case, in the name of the cause you care about, police subterfuge such as you describe is like winning the lottery, and you WISH they would employ these tactics
people congregate, they are social animals. you can't outlaw political parties. in other words, yes, all of the negatives of political parties are 100% real. and yet its like pointing out that its bad you will die someday: there's nothing you can do to change it, its just a fact of reality, a negative you have to deal with, as there is no getting rid of that negative
not many people understand how hard it is to fake real genuine stupidity
its a kind of genius, the troll that can feign true and convincing retardedness
one thing really bothers me about commentary
on
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
about iran and nukes:
"israel and usa has it (and used it), so why can't iran? typical western hypocrisy"
ok, if you are a westerner, a chinese, an indian, a russian, a resident of bora bora or lower botswana, wherever... in other words, no matter WHERE you are from, you are probably interested in nuclear nonproliferation. with that in mind, you would be interested in those states with current nuclear arsenals giving them up, correct? you would also be interested in NO OTHER STATES GETTING THEM. right? nuclear nonproliferation is something important to you? or is it not important you as your overriding conceptual and moral concern? is it not the most important issue to you?
so please, by all means, talk about western hypocrisy. the west is indeed hypocritical. but if western hypocrisy is more important to you than nuclear nonproliferation, then i call bullshit on your morality and your sense of priorities. hey: how about grudges against the west being LESS important than your interest in seeing nuclear weapons curtailed? say this instead of "why can't iran have them if the west has them": "i think iran shouldn't have nukes. oh, and btw, while we're on the subject, israel and usa should give up theres"
now you are being morally coherent in my book. now you are talking from a point of view of logic and morality and a set of guiding principles as the foremost concern in your mind. rather than "the usa has them so iran should have them, fairs fair". when you say that, i don't see morality or a human conscience, i see typical tribal backbiting
did you ever think why these so-called missing links are dead and buried in the ground? god killed them, that's why. doesn't that teach you anything? THEY AREN'T HERE ANYMORE. don't you wonder why that is and why you shouldn't dig this stuff up? god killed them fair and square. who gives you the right to mess around with god's intention?
just putting your two cents out there, wide open and public, on a comment board where seedier elements are known to roam
and you have the audacity to talk about users needing to take a greater interest in their online security? when you stroll around with your cash wide out and on the open internet?
in other words, if you have a bunch of peaceful marchers, and some assholes, whether secret agents or organically angry protestors, start rioting, then truly peaceful marchers would, at least, ignore them, or, at best, try to calm them down in order to remain a peaceful march. i've seen this in person: some hot head marcher suddenly leaves the march and stops screaming red faced at some people laughing at the antiwar rally. and his friend came up and calmed him down and helps him back in line. thats a REAL peaceful protest
now if instead that hot head starts yelling at the people laughing at the antiwar rally is suddenly joined by a crowd of antiwar protestors equally interested in starting a riot, then the scene will degrade into an outright mob that requires police intervention. in other words, it does not matter if you throw a spark. what matters is if the spark hits wet wood or dry kindling. either the crowd is truly peaceful and will not riot regardless of the stimulation, or they will turn into angry rioters at a moments notice. in either case, the character of the protesters en masse is the root cause of the outcome, not supposed secret agents OR genuinely bad seeds. if there are enough angry people in a march who are predisposed to violence, that is all that matters, and that means they deserve police intervention
so the existence of agents, real or paranoid schizophrenia, is a red herring: if there are enough people rioting in a protest, the protest needs to be stopped. it doesn't matter who started it: a truly peaceful march wouldn't EVER turn into a riot, no matter how many agents/ bad seeds or how forceful they try to agitate
with a two party system you point out i do not dispute, and agree with wholeheartedly
but the error in your thinking is that 3,4,5,6, etc. party systems are somehow superior to a two party system. multiparty systems suffer from different negatives than two party systems, but add up all the negatives, and they are basically all the same amount of suckage
in other words, looking at two parties as the source of our problems is the mistake. no, its more ephemerals reason: corruption, collusion, hypocrisy, selling out your constituents, etc., which has absolutely nothing to do with how many parties there are at all
when i ask people to stop criticizing the two party system, it is not because i defend the system, but because i know the source of the problem is much deeper. if the usa had a stable 3,4,5,etc party system in place, we would have just as many problems, of the same kind
all i am saying is that complaining about the two party system is simply a red herring, a dead end. if your desire is to effect positive change, fight the real, deeper reasons instead. fighting the two party system is simply wasting your time and energy: fruitless even if you did create more stable parties
when every conflict was decided by lethal force. there are still places today like that. like somalia: warlords and anarchy
however, other parts of this world developed this wacky thing called civilization. where there are rules, people decided their differences in a court of law, and they voted for their leader, rather than their leader being determined to be the guy with the most guns. its called civil society. where if i have a difference with you, i TALK to you, rather than SHOOT you. isn't that an amazing concept?
"Yes, YOU are part of the problem with your holy "vote" which you are stupid enough to think changes anything. YOUR hand is on the rope--and YOU are one of the reasons GUNS are needed--lots and lots of GUNS. How do you like my making myself heard, NOW, victim disarmer?:)"
my vote does actually changes things. and my vote has changed things. and with any hope and luck, my vote will continue to move us further away from the era where mortal conflict decided things, which is apparently the only reality you understand. you and people like you are the soil in which tyranny grows. where force of violence is more important than force of reason, where strength is more important than intelligence. you and people who think like you represent our downfall and everything the founding fathers of this country stood for. you and how you think represent the loyal ranks of every force of goons every tyrant has ever needed to keep his people in fear and under his boot: i have the gun, so do as a i say. the gun decides the day, not what is actually right and wrong. there are many warlords and their henchman in somalia who agree with you completely. maybe you should take your masturbatory soldier of fortune fantasies to their logical conclusion, and ship off as a mercenary to some hellhole, where in 6-12 months you will be a maggot laden corpse, which is the inevitable conclusion of your way of thinking
sir, i've talked to many pathetic losers on this here glorious intarwebs. and you sir, are a glorious loser of the highest order: a gun is more important than a vote
fucking pathetic beyond belief. the antithesis of everything the founding fathers stood for
in fact, i believe that if guns were banned death by knives would go way up. but not as high as mortality rates due to guns: its simple matter of quantity of lethal force available to you. a knife is many factors less in lethality than a gun
i also believe that if someone still wants a gun, and they are committed enough, they will still get guns even though they are illegal. but that's not the point either. the whole issue are the thuggish morons who don't have the easy wherewithall to get a gun, who would do their typical retarded mayhem with far less lethality than they do today
making guns harder to get takes them out of the hands of your casual loser. that's the whole point. that's the beginning and the ending of the whole reason to constrain guns. and that matters, that makes a massive difference in mortality rates. which is the whole fucking point!: less pointless senseless death at the hands of complete losers and morons simply because they have less lethality in easy reach
now accuse me of some secret fascist agenda instead. zzz, tired and typical
the police are too far away. so we have a status quo here currently in the usa where hundreds of urban dwellers die every year from thugs with guns for the sake of a law which serves only the rural minority. but as the usa continues to urbanize further, and begins to equal european urban/rural ratios, political status quo will fall in line inevitably
and instead of HUNDREDS of urban dwellers dying every year for the sake of rural-friendly laws as we currently have, DOZENS of rural folks will die instead for the sake of urban friendly laws
inevitable. deal with it
"I am not FRINGE because I don't vote."
that's true. your SELF-DISENFRANCHIZED because you don't vote. your vote is your voice in your society. if you seek to not vote, you have willfully removed your own voice, you have chosen to be irrelvant. so why are you still fucking talking? you seek to not be a member of society. which is fine, drop out if you like: in which case, shut up and stop commenting on a society you freely choose not to belong to. if you want your opinion to be considered by us in this society, try to be a part of it by voting, and make your voice heard
but you don't get to drop out of society by your own choice and still think anything you say is relevant
if you want to be relevant, vote, and consider yourself to be a member of the same society as me. or don't, and, in logical coherence with that choice of yours, shut the fuck up
otherwise, there is absolutely zero for me to respect about anything you say, because by your own admission, you choose to not matter to me by not voting
oh you have your gun. awesome: why solve problems with voting when you can shoot, is that your point of view? fucking shizophrenic loser
that is, you shouldn't vote for the candidate who best matches your ideology
you should vote for the candidate that best matches your ideology and has the best chance to win
yes, this means that you tend to vote for the most lukewarm limp candidate who is doing his best to appeal to as many people as possible... and that is a bad thing why?
the power of democracy is that it manufactures legitimacy. it does this by picking rulers that best match the opinion of the people. therefore, the candidates do their best to be that person. and this is a GOOD THING. legitimacy=social stability=prosperity=the whole reason democracy is a good thing. and no, it doesn't mean that the candidates are the same from the republican party and the democratic party. tell me with a straight face mccain would be earnestly pursuing health care right now. tell me with a straight face gore would invade iraq in 2003. no, the democrats and the republicans ARE NOT THE SAME
furthermore, two party system is not automatically inferior and democracy destroying. in fact, in democracies without two major parties, coalition governments form, in which, in pure grabs for power, completely ideologically opposed party representatives will get in bed with each other to grab power. go ahead, ask any german. and this is superior to two parties how? you honestly believe it is the two party system that is keeping your FRINGE beliefs from gaining traction? no, your ideas don't gain traction because your ideas are FRINGE. begining and ending of reason your ideas don't work. its not because its blocked by some status quo, its because your ideas are flawed. if they were good ideas, they would be adopted by a major party. duh
of course, those on the fringe will appeal that for you there be a pure correlation between your ideology and whom you vote for. ridiculous and naive: if everyone voted that way, 20-30 fringe candidates would take a roughly approximately equal share of the pie, and the guy who for vague reasons got a slightly greater vote (remember, he's fringe) would represent everyone. so randomly one year we would be represented by the communist party, the next the nazi party, and the vast majority of the country (the various ideologically fundamentalist factions who only vote their conscience and never strategically) would despise the guy. so superior?
of course, it doesn't happen this way. what happens in real life is fringe boosters and enthusiasts work hard to get people to vote for their fringe candidate. this usually consists of cannibalism of those who would otherwise vote for the ideologically nearer candidate. such that those who vote fringe candidates and enthuse for them wind up ensuring that the guy FURTHEST from your ideology actually wins! ie: gore, bushjr, and nader (spoiler for gore) in 2000. or bushsr, clinton, and perot (spoiler for bushsr) in 1992
don't vote your opinion. guess the most popular options, and vote STRATEGICALLY: the guy CLOSEST to you ideologically. or vote your opinion, and ensure the guy FURTHEST from you ideologically wins
politics is not about idealism. politics is about compromise. if you don't compromise, you lose. simple as that, on all levels of politics, from the white house, to the state house, to the town hall, to the voting booth: its a simple undeniable fact that compromise always wins over the idealist
meanwhile, if you think ytou are being noble by "never compromising your ideals" you are actually a fool, and you are working hard that you will never, ever see anything you believe actually become public policy. the real world never works the idealist's way. grow up and stop being naive and vote STRATEGICALLY. or forever remain fringe and forgotten. your choice
the enemies of trolls are legion, and trolls are under siege. however, recent technological research has uncovered an entirely new parallel dimension of troll content overlaying the entire web, without any of the typical anti-troll technology in place
a fertile, virgin land, a new world, ready for colonization and plenty of glorious trolling like "no, u stfu!" and "This web page sounds like typical Obama style fascist socialism"
vulnerabilities exist. this is true of all systems, no matter who uncovers them
therefore, an intelligent organization: a bank, a military, a government, will have a system where private disclosure of vulnerabilities results in a reward for the discoverer
if you don't have such a policy, a discoverer might turn to finding reward in your vulnerability with your enemies or criminality instead
unfortunately, the discoverer must consider the possibility that if he divulged the discovered vulnerability quietly, the organization he penetrated might find the least costly solution to the problem to be the the disappearance of the discoverer
such that the most moral and safest approach for a discoverer is to go public with the vulnerability instead. which of course invites the wrath of the organization penetrated. its a no-win situation for the moral discoverer of a vulnerability, such that there is constant pressure on white and gray hats to go black
Slashdot Mirror
yes, i am indeed 100% against the theocratic GOVERNMENT of iran, not its people
and you might have noticed a teensy weensy happening in iran in june of this year, in which the people of that country pretty much spoke out loudly in disfavor of their illegitimate government. you could call it a rant on their part ;-)
so if that makes me a moron, so be it, i embrace the label. that i stand with the iranian people, whom i love for their spirit, then i am happy to be a moron in your eyes for that
pray tell, who do you stand with?
make it fancy sounding enough, and you can sell people air
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-server
aka: cloud computing
"Client/server is a communications model. Cloud computing is a business model, a management model, a deployment model, etc... You might as well say "networking" is the real concept, and that fancy "cloud computing" is just a PHB term for "networking". Let's just call cloud "computer networking!""
so when the PHBs of the 1980s were deploying client/ server based systems, they were concerned with simply ethernet cable and routers? they weren't thinking at all about their business model, management model, or deployment model?
look, if i wave my hands fast enough, you can't see what i'm really talking about... zzz
"A time lens can focus a chunk of time to a point, rather like a normal lens focuses light rays."
no, its not LIKE a normal lens, it IS a normal lens. kind of like how "cloud computing" is the same client/ server model of decades past, a "times lens" is basically, uh, gee, a lens. but made sexy by introducing scifi fantasy terminology for the sake of grabbing attention
we live in a world where someone somewhere sells stupidity like this, and someone somewhere buys stupidity like this:
http://www.seen-on-tv.ws/mail-order/hd-vision.html
i'm really pissed because the sunglasses i bought are only 4:3 aspect ratio and 525 scan lines ;-(
i'm waiting for the progressive HD sunglasses to come down in price though. all these suckers are buying interlaced HD sunglasses
how many databases could fit inside that RF amp?
the term "netbook" comes from the fact that because they are small lightweight laptops, they are much more prone to contamination than regular laptops. therefore, they require the use of hairnets during operation. why this is true requires profound technological expertise i don't have the time to educate you fools on in this venue, but suffice it to say that it has to do with the cube of the static charge carried by the contamination proportionate to the surface area of the hard drive
and i am flabbergasted and horrified evey time i see someone using their netbooks without the mandatory use of a proper hairnet. just one little hair sliding in a crack in between the keys on the keyboard! you fools
Loving Troll Father, we thank you for this cornucopia of naivete,
And for all your blessings of the easily duped to us.
Lord Troll Jesus, come and be our guest,
And take your place at this trollish table of bounty.
Holy Troll Spirit, as the trolled fool feeds our trollish pride,
So we pray you would nourish our trollish souls. Amen.
so beeth the prayer of the troll upon a successful catch
by one of the dozens of cameras now sometimes outnumbering the number of protestors at rallies and marches
and then can be taken to the media, where the sensational story will bring even more attention to the cause of the protestors
and then can be litigated, drawing months and years of further media attention and interest
in other words, any smart police department isn't interested in doing anything you suggest, because it massively backfires. and if the police are that stupid to use such subterfuge, then all they are doing is giving the cause the protestors are agitating for massive prolonged media interest. in which case, in the name of the cause you care about, police subterfuge such as you describe is like winning the lottery, and you WISH they would employ these tactics
people congregate, they are social animals. you can't outlaw political parties. in other words, yes, all of the negatives of political parties are 100% real. and yet its like pointing out that its bad you will die someday: there's nothing you can do to change it, its just a fact of reality, a negative you have to deal with, as there is no getting rid of that negative
i tried, i failed
not many people understand how hard it is to fake real genuine stupidity
its a kind of genius, the troll that can feign true and convincing retardedness
about iran and nukes:
"israel and usa has it (and used it), so why can't iran? typical western hypocrisy"
ok, if you are a westerner, a chinese, an indian, a russian, a resident of bora bora or lower botswana, wherever... in other words, no matter WHERE you are from, you are probably interested in nuclear nonproliferation. with that in mind, you would be interested in those states with current nuclear arsenals giving them up, correct? you would also be interested in NO OTHER STATES GETTING THEM. right? nuclear nonproliferation is something important to you? or is it not important you as your overriding conceptual and moral concern? is it not the most important issue to you?
so please, by all means, talk about western hypocrisy. the west is indeed hypocritical. but if western hypocrisy is more important to you than nuclear nonproliferation, then i call bullshit on your morality and your sense of priorities. hey: how about grudges against the west being LESS important than your interest in seeing nuclear weapons curtailed? say this instead of "why can't iran have them if the west has them": "i think iran shouldn't have nukes. oh, and btw, while we're on the subject, israel and usa should give up theres"
now you are being morally coherent in my book. now you are talking from a point of view of logic and morality and a set of guiding principles as the foremost concern in your mind. rather than "the usa has them so iran should have them, fairs fair". when you say that, i don't see morality or a human conscience, i see typical tribal backbiting
SATAN did. SATAN put those bones there you fool!
did you ever think why these so-called missing links are dead and buried in the ground? god killed them, that's why. doesn't that teach you anything? THEY AREN'T HERE ANYMORE. don't you wonder why that is and why you shouldn't dig this stuff up? god killed them fair and square. who gives you the right to mess around with god's intention?
thank you for your two cents, that was so easy
just putting your two cents out there, wide open and public, on a comment board where seedier elements are known to roam
and you have the audacity to talk about users needing to take a greater interest in their online security? when you stroll around with your cash wide out and on the open internet?
and he goes: "dude, lets start breaking windows"
and you go, and smash windows
why is agent x responsible for that?
in other words, if you have a bunch of peaceful marchers, and some assholes, whether secret agents or organically angry protestors, start rioting, then truly peaceful marchers would, at least, ignore them, or, at best, try to calm them down in order to remain a peaceful march. i've seen this in person: some hot head marcher suddenly leaves the march and stops screaming red faced at some people laughing at the antiwar rally. and his friend came up and calmed him down and helps him back in line. thats a REAL peaceful protest
now if instead that hot head starts yelling at the people laughing at the antiwar rally is suddenly joined by a crowd of antiwar protestors equally interested in starting a riot, then the scene will degrade into an outright mob that requires police intervention. in other words, it does not matter if you throw a spark. what matters is if the spark hits wet wood or dry kindling. either the crowd is truly peaceful and will not riot regardless of the stimulation, or they will turn into angry rioters at a moments notice. in either case, the character of the protesters en masse is the root cause of the outcome, not supposed secret agents OR genuinely bad seeds. if there are enough angry people in a march who are predisposed to violence, that is all that matters, and that means they deserve police intervention
so the existence of agents, real or paranoid schizophrenia, is a red herring: if there are enough people rioting in a protest, the protest needs to be stopped. it doesn't matter who started it: a truly peaceful march wouldn't EVER turn into a riot, no matter how many agents/ bad seeds or how forceful they try to agitate
with a two party system you point out i do not dispute, and agree with wholeheartedly
but the error in your thinking is that 3,4,5,6, etc. party systems are somehow superior to a two party system. multiparty systems suffer from different negatives than two party systems, but add up all the negatives, and they are basically all the same amount of suckage
in other words, looking at two parties as the source of our problems is the mistake. no, its more ephemerals reason: corruption, collusion, hypocrisy, selling out your constituents, etc., which has absolutely nothing to do with how many parties there are at all
when i ask people to stop criticizing the two party system, it is not because i defend the system, but because i know the source of the problem is much deeper. if the usa had a stable 3,4,5,etc party system in place, we would have just as many problems, of the same kind
all i am saying is that complaining about the two party system is simply a red herring, a dead end. if your desire is to effect positive change, fight the real, deeper reasons instead. fighting the two party system is simply wasting your time and energy: fruitless even if you did create more stable parties
when every conflict was decided by lethal force. there are still places today like that. like somalia: warlords and anarchy
however, other parts of this world developed this wacky thing called civilization. where there are rules, people decided their differences in a court of law, and they voted for their leader, rather than their leader being determined to be the guy with the most guns. its called civil society. where if i have a difference with you, i TALK to you, rather than SHOOT you. isn't that an amazing concept?
"Yes, YOU are part of the problem with your holy "vote" which you are stupid enough to think changes anything. YOUR hand is on the rope--and YOU are one of the reasons GUNS are needed--lots and lots of GUNS. How do you like my making myself heard, NOW, victim disarmer?:)"
my vote does actually changes things. and my vote has changed things. and with any hope and luck, my vote will continue to move us further away from the era where mortal conflict decided things, which is apparently the only reality you understand. you and people like you are the soil in which tyranny grows. where force of violence is more important than force of reason, where strength is more important than intelligence. you and people who think like you represent our downfall and everything the founding fathers of this country stood for. you and how you think represent the loyal ranks of every force of goons every tyrant has ever needed to keep his people in fear and under his boot: i have the gun, so do as a i say. the gun decides the day, not what is actually right and wrong. there are many warlords and their henchman in somalia who agree with you completely. maybe you should take your masturbatory soldier of fortune fantasies to their logical conclusion, and ship off as a mercenary to some hellhole, where in 6-12 months you will be a maggot laden corpse, which is the inevitable conclusion of your way of thinking
sir, i've talked to many pathetic losers on this here glorious intarwebs. and you sir, are a glorious loser of the highest order: a gun is more important than a vote
fucking pathetic beyond belief. the antithesis of everything the founding fathers stood for
in fact, i believe that if guns were banned death by knives would go way up. but not as high as mortality rates due to guns: its simple matter of quantity of lethal force available to you. a knife is many factors less in lethality than a gun
i also believe that if someone still wants a gun, and they are committed enough, they will still get guns even though they are illegal. but that's not the point either. the whole issue are the thuggish morons who don't have the easy wherewithall to get a gun, who would do their typical retarded mayhem with far less lethality than they do today
making guns harder to get takes them out of the hands of your casual loser. that's the whole point. that's the beginning and the ending of the whole reason to constrain guns. and that matters, that makes a massive difference in mortality rates. which is the whole fucking point!: less pointless senseless death at the hands of complete losers and morons simply because they have less lethality in easy reach
now accuse me of some secret fascist agenda instead. zzz, tired and typical
the police are too far away. so we have a status quo here currently in the usa where hundreds of urban dwellers die every year from thugs with guns for the sake of a law which serves only the rural minority. but as the usa continues to urbanize further, and begins to equal european urban/rural ratios, political status quo will fall in line inevitably
and instead of HUNDREDS of urban dwellers dying every year for the sake of rural-friendly laws as we currently have, DOZENS of rural folks will die instead for the sake of urban friendly laws
inevitable. deal with it
"I am not FRINGE because I don't vote."
that's true. your SELF-DISENFRANCHIZED because you don't vote. your vote is your voice in your society. if you seek to not vote, you have willfully removed your own voice, you have chosen to be irrelvant. so why are you still fucking talking? you seek to not be a member of society. which is fine, drop out if you like: in which case, shut up and stop commenting on a society you freely choose not to belong to. if you want your opinion to be considered by us in this society, try to be a part of it by voting, and make your voice heard
but you don't get to drop out of society by your own choice and still think anything you say is relevant
if you want to be relevant, vote, and consider yourself to be a member of the same society as me. or don't, and, in logical coherence with that choice of yours, shut the fuck up
otherwise, there is absolutely zero for me to respect about anything you say, because by your own admission, you choose to not matter to me by not voting
oh you have your gun. awesome: why solve problems with voting when you can shoot, is that your point of view? fucking shizophrenic loser
they believe the two parties cooperate to keep smaller parties from gaining traction
maybe you're just lucky you haven't been dealing with the kind of kooks i've heard from
you should vote strategically
that is, you shouldn't vote for the candidate who best matches your ideology
you should vote for the candidate that best matches your ideology and has the best chance to win
yes, this means that you tend to vote for the most lukewarm limp candidate who is doing his best to appeal to as many people as possible... and that is a bad thing why?
the power of democracy is that it manufactures legitimacy. it does this by picking rulers that best match the opinion of the people. therefore, the candidates do their best to be that person. and this is a GOOD THING. legitimacy=social stability=prosperity=the whole reason democracy is a good thing. and no, it doesn't mean that the candidates are the same from the republican party and the democratic party. tell me with a straight face mccain would be earnestly pursuing health care right now. tell me with a straight face gore would invade iraq in 2003. no, the democrats and the republicans ARE NOT THE SAME
furthermore, two party system is not automatically inferior and democracy destroying. in fact, in democracies without two major parties, coalition governments form, in which, in pure grabs for power, completely ideologically opposed party representatives will get in bed with each other to grab power. go ahead, ask any german. and this is superior to two parties how? you honestly believe it is the two party system that is keeping your FRINGE beliefs from gaining traction? no, your ideas don't gain traction because your ideas are FRINGE. begining and ending of reason your ideas don't work. its not because its blocked by some status quo, its because your ideas are flawed. if they were good ideas, they would be adopted by a major party. duh
of course, those on the fringe will appeal that for you there be a pure correlation between your ideology and whom you vote for. ridiculous and naive: if everyone voted that way, 20-30 fringe candidates would take a roughly approximately equal share of the pie, and the guy who for vague reasons got a slightly greater vote (remember, he's fringe) would represent everyone. so randomly one year we would be represented by the communist party, the next the nazi party, and the vast majority of the country (the various ideologically fundamentalist factions who only vote their conscience and never strategically) would despise the guy. so superior?
of course, it doesn't happen this way. what happens in real life is fringe boosters and enthusiasts work hard to get people to vote for their fringe candidate. this usually consists of cannibalism of those who would otherwise vote for the ideologically nearer candidate. such that those who vote fringe candidates and enthuse for them wind up ensuring that the guy FURTHEST from your ideology actually wins! ie: gore, bushjr, and nader (spoiler for gore) in 2000. or bushsr, clinton, and perot (spoiler for bushsr) in 1992
don't vote your opinion. guess the most popular options, and vote STRATEGICALLY: the guy CLOSEST to you ideologically. or vote your opinion, and ensure the guy FURTHEST from you ideologically wins
politics is not about idealism. politics is about compromise. if you don't compromise, you lose. simple as that, on all levels of politics, from the white house, to the state house, to the town hall, to the voting booth: its a simple undeniable fact that compromise always wins over the idealist
meanwhile, if you think ytou are being noble by "never compromising your ideals" you are actually a fool, and you are working hard that you will never, ever see anything you believe actually become public policy. the real world never works the idealist's way. grow up and stop being naive and vote STRATEGICALLY. or forever remain fringe and forgotten. your choice
is the duct tape manager
trying to hop in his chair to the phone, arms bound to the armrests with duct tape, screaming MMMMPH MMMMPH through the glorious dull shiny grey of...
what were we talking about?
notice the picture on the bottom left, the one with the handle bar
now compare that to the top 3 pictures with the nice executive fellow sitting happily with his pelvic thrust forward
i dunno, but i'm not sure the male prostate doubles as a seat cushion
however, i am quite impressed with takanobusan's ability to tolerate pain and discomfort while smiling serenely
the enemies of trolls are legion, and trolls are under siege. however, recent technological research has uncovered an entirely new parallel dimension of troll content overlaying the entire web, without any of the typical anti-troll technology in place
a fertile, virgin land, a new world, ready for colonization and plenty of glorious trolling like "no, u stfu!" and "This web page sounds like typical Obama style fascist socialism"
vulnerabilities exist. this is true of all systems, no matter who uncovers them
therefore, an intelligent organization: a bank, a military, a government, will have a system where private disclosure of vulnerabilities results in a reward for the discoverer
if you don't have such a policy, a discoverer might turn to finding reward in your vulnerability with your enemies or criminality instead
unfortunately, the discoverer must consider the possibility that if he divulged the discovered vulnerability quietly, the organization he penetrated might find the least costly solution to the problem to be the the disappearance of the discoverer
such that the most moral and safest approach for a discoverer is to go public with the vulnerability instead. which of course invites the wrath of the organization penetrated. its a no-win situation for the moral discoverer of a vulnerability, such that there is constant pressure on white and gray hats to go black