from the most liberal dutchman to the most conservative saudi
censoring child pornography is nothing remotely like censoring political speech
and if country A censors child pornography, while country B censors political speech, they are not anywhere near comparable
and yet you see people all the time, especially on slashdot, actually saying "country A censors child porn so how can it criticize another country for censoring political opinion?"
they can, and they should, and they are perfectly entitled too
as yes there actually ARE some things, like child porn, that SHOULD be censored, according to ANY ideology
its not as if you don't have services to offer, no? if anyone wants to use your intellectual creations to their fullest, surely they should go straight to the intellectual creator?
the idea that you can constrain who gets your intellectual creations is the backasswards way of thinking about how to maximize your profit. you shouldn't constrain who gets your intellectual creations at all. you should maximize the exposure your creations get, cementing your reputation, and creating a golden calling card for anyone who wants to expand upon your efforts with your help
of course, they might not want your help. as if anyone who would buy your book wants your help either. but here's the important part: for every one person who wants your help, who bought your book, there are ten people who want your help, because they got your book for free. free=maximium exposure. and then the income from those ten revenue sources and work sources outmatches the income from all of the book sales
where he did some back of the envelope calculations... lung capacity, lifetime, time since death, amount of atoms in the air, relative rate of organic material exchange with the atmosphere, dispersal rates, etc...
and he came to the remarkable (or, rather, unremarkable) conclusion that every time you inhale, you inhale something like 200 atoms of socrates. i mean, 200 atoms that made up the living, breathing philosopher from ancient greece. go ahead, inhale: 200 atoms of the man known as socrates just went inside you
i guess you really need to "inhale" to find transcendant trippiness over that fact i suppose;-)
anyway, look: they are talking picogram quantities here. whatever. you can find picogram quantities of all sorts of outlandish stuff in the air of any city. anthrax, estrogen, plutonium... its all rather sensationalistic and pointless
the death of the movie house was predicted because of tv in the 1950s for chirssake. and the business still grew. vcr, dvd, internet: it was all supposed to kill movie houses. every year the business does bigger business. why do people go to church instead of receive spiritual enlightenment at home by themselves? because we are social animals. despite babies and cell phones, people actually like the laughs and oohs of the crowds around them, it enhances the experience of the movie
not that there aren't asocial outliers such as yourself. there's always cranks
fact is, they could make movie tickets $20/ head, have crying babies and cell phones as mandatory background noise, and moviehouses would still do gangbuster business
sure, you can talk about home theatre systems, which most people can't afford, and you can talk about inviting your friends over, which is not something easy to coordinate. not even your closest friends want to watch the latest crank high voltage movie with you on the spur of the moment, out of other commitments, they don't like that movie, or they actually do hate your smoking, etc. and just try to coordinate more than 2 friends. no: you're watching alone. which is lame
the moviegoing experience has a long and profitable future ahead of it, in spite of all the whiny cranks. because, in the end, your spoken words don't actually match your actions (that is, you whine, but still go back to the theatre anyways). or, if you actually don't go to the movie theatres for what are actually minor complaints, then you are just a vanishing small minority that can be safely ignored: the chronically unsatisfiable crank. your opinion has no meaningful value as to the behavior of most of us, as your opinion and behavior is a tiny minority of actual human behavior that has no resonance
tv was supposed to kill theatres, then vcrs, then dvds, the internet, then hd theatre... bullshit, bullshit, bullshit
the music industry has been eaten alive by piracy, simply because digital delivery is the most convenient (you consume it by yourself with headphones primarily), and it's easy to pirate
however, movies are best enjoyed in a moviehouse, not a 17 inch monitor alone by yourself in the basement, so while movie piracy will be an issue (it will kill the dvd aftermarket and blockbuster/ netflix), it won't threaten moviehouses
the newspaper needs to be current info, so online material is actually superior to thrown on your doorstep the next morning. so newspapers are withering and dying
conversely, books are best enjoyed on paper pulp: durable, zero power usage, cheap as heck
i never understood the kindle or the appeal of it and i don't think it will ever make a big dent in the book reading public apart from the technophiles (people who obsessively buy new tech on the coolness quotient are not necessarily practical people)
ie, any country where the notion of individual rights are not well-respected
you have not remotely described anything that would happen in new york city or london
furthermore, to suppose that the existence of transit cameras is some sort of unstoppable corrosive battery acid that will subvert 400 years of enlightenment thinking reveals a lack of faith in western liberal thinking on your part, not on the part of western society
the pillars of these western liberal notions and the rights and freedoms they support are not impervious to damage, not in the least. but they are a lot stronger than you suppose, and to destroy them to the extent that you and others suggest would take a lot more concerted effort and a lot more societal changes than some stupid transit cameras
if you do not understand the last two sentences i have just written, you are most definitely a hysterical twit, operating on unfound fear, and not in the least upon reasonable thought
slashdot frequently decries mass hysteria, yet fears of television cameras to capture speeders is apparently the gateway to the downfall of western civilization and liberal/libertarian ideals. gee, maybe its just to catch speeders?
i try to find the reason for this peculiar slashdot hysteria, and i really can't find the reason why a bunch of otherwise intelligent people go so bonkers over transit cameras. maybe it is just that some people here take the symbolism of 1984 as if it were divine infallible revelation. that the book is just a halfbaked work of fiction, whose implications have absolutely nothing to do with the reality we find ourselves in today, is apparently besides the point
for example: little brother. orwell never considered this. the idea being, anyone with a cell phone camera has the same surveillance technology as the state and can use that against the state in collusion with other individuals, a la rodney king. the implications of this technological balance between the individual and the state, even though rodney king happened almost twenty years ago, is apparently completely beyond some of you great minds to even consider. no: transit cameras are an unstoppable identity destroying force, a slippery slope into totalitarian fascism, and we have no defense against it. huh? how about this:
is this the future as presaged by orwell? you can't consider that REAL LIFE example? no: orwell's FICTION laid it all out, and it is unquestionable divine revelation? are you paranoid schizophrenics?
its as if slashdot takes orwell as some sort of infallible prophet, and no one actually applies any mental effort to analyze what he actually writes, to come to conclusion: gee, nice science fiction story, absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CURRENT REALITY. EVER
some of you would laugh at superstitious illiterate 3rd world rural people who might believe, for example, that giving them the evil eye would give them cancer, or that taking their picture steals a bit of their soul
this is exactly how i think of some of you. so many of you take with unthinking devotion the idea that speeding cameras are equivalent to a slippery slope to totalitarian fascism. its absolutely hilarious, the panty twisting stupidity of this notion. really
frankly, i find no difference between some of your thinking on george orwell's cheesy fiction and the thinking religious fundamentalists and their sacred texts
enjoy geroge orwell, please. i especially liked "animal farm". but some of you really have to update some of your frankly ridiculous blind assumptions on camera technology and western civilization. you are quite the laughing stock the way some of you get worked up into a tizzy over what is frankly, not the slightest big deal
you may now mod me troll and continue your groupthink whineathon about how speeding camaras are fascism
just travel back in time and redo the script. keep doing that until you guaranteed a blockbuster
just make sure to save the whales, and that joan collins gets hit by a truck
tangential rant: time travel is the absolute lamest aspect of star trek. i haven't seen any good science fiction come out of time travel plots except perhaps the terminator storyline. if you can alter time, where is the tension in the plot? it lets the air of the tires, so to say, in terms of suspending your disbelief for payoff. time travel is a completely lame premise in all science fiction, and that includes the current start trek movie. i can't believe that star trek writers can't write compelling script without this lame crutch. please stop
all of the analysis of hacker standard operating procedure is they want to maximize their power or their financial gain. this is in fact the motivation for 99% of people who commit any crime in this world
however, there is a small subset of criminal in this world who does what he does for only one reason: he just desires destruction out of pure teenaged nihilistic impulse: why throw rocks at windows? just to hear the glass break. there is no leverage over such a person, nor logical analysis of their motivation. and they will eventually get their hands on a botnet someday, and execute the "nuclear option" out of simple glee. as long as they don't get their hands on a real nuke i suppose
Alfred Pennyworth: A long time ago, I was in Burma, my friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never found anyone who traded with him. One day I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.
Bruce Wayne: Then why steal them?
Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
i don't think you have the faintest clue what "sovereign immunity" means. perhaps you saw it as a plot twist in a bad hollywood movie. try educating yourself in reality next time
of course, wiping your disk after start of litigation opens you up to destruction of evidence
so all you have to is structure your attitude towards the courts, and the nature of how you wipe according the RNC playbook, and you can should be able to give yourself enough plausible deniability to let yourself off the hook. "whoops! how'd that happen?"
pirates should learn from the best crooks, the past administration, when it comes to the destruction of electronic evidence
or i suppose there exists some sort of double standard between the elites and the commoners in a country supposedly standing for western liberal ideals about fair play and equality? naahhhh...
while they aren't hobbits, they are similarly ancient, diminuitive peoples of southeast asia whose history may be instructive of how succeeding waves of human and proto-humans competed with and replaced each other. based on the experience of the aeta, i wouldn't be surprised if the last flores hobbit died at the sharp end of a homo sapien's stick
The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[1] Their current populations include the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Mani of Thailand and 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands of the Indian Ocean.
Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation. They are genetically distant from Africans at most loci studied thus far (except for MCR1, which codes for dark skin). They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans.[2]
essentially, ancient remnant isolated melanesian populations in largely malay and thai areas across indonesia, malaysia, the philippines, and thailand. the malays took over the coastal areas over time, and now the aeta live in tiny mountain tribes. they also existed in china until recently. han and malay peoples just either outright exterminated them, outcompeted them, or genetically intermarried and swamped them out of existence
Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair. After the Little Black People -- and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 -- came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe. The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together.
in the philippines, the aeta famously came to light after the eruption of mount pinatubo, and this isolated group of peoples, probably living on the mountain isolated for hundreds if not thousands of years, were suddenly driven into the modern world
the island of negros in the philippines gets its name from the spanish who found large numbers of aeta who lived there, at one time. now the island is almost completely malay
the dutch hurried along the process of the supplanting of the aeta with more cooperative malay slaves by genocidally emptying some strategic spice islands because the aetas proved uncooperative in the profitable nutmeg trade:
stems from the daily body count of urban dwellers due to rural dwellers insistence on carrying around firearms. were it possible to have different gun laws for the urban dweller versus the rural dweller, i'd support the avergae rural hick's desire to have guns. which i understand: the police are far away. but as it is, right now, urban dwellers suffer for the sake of what rural dwellers want. yet we outnumber you. so i think it is time, in proper democratic fashion, that we reverse this equation and rural dwellers begin suffer for the sake of what urban dwellers want
yes, in my world, there will be rural dwellers who will be the mortal victims of a crime because they were denied access to a firearm. this is in opposition to the orders of magnitude more urban dwellers who are mortal victims of morons running around with guns in today's world. therefore, my world is superior to the present status quo
a lot of these changes in speed are not noticeable. not many users care about the difference between 10ms and 100ms (unless it stacks of course). so vista is slower because when you hover over a placeholder in the taskbar, you get a little graphical popup of the window in question. do users like this? do they not? what is the trade off in speed? if it is on the order of 90ms, no one is really going to care, regardless of the marginal usability increases
to reverse the argument, look at the popularity of netbooks: a laptop with a cellphone's processor. this is acceptable to most because they aren't playing the latest fps or running photoshop, they are just reading email and web surfing, and the price differential makes it worthwhile. not that windows 7 won't be more expensive than a free os, i'm just dismantling the notion that the average user cares that much about speed at all
we are at an age where "fast enough and cheaper" is more important than "fastest". and yes, windows 7 is trying its darndest to compete on those principles in the netbook arena. stop poopooing windows 7's speed and start focusing on the gains that free os is making in the netbook arena, and focus on leveraging and extending those gains while microsoft scrambles to stay relevant
kind of like how the wii stole the thunder from the monster processing power of playstation 3: most people don't care about some redhead's hyperrealistic flowing hair. they just want a little pubhouse dartboard-and-foosball level time wasting light hearted fun. slower (and cheaper) is the new frontier nowadays. speed just isn't that big of a deal anymore. speed is a 1990s era concern of guys pouring liquid nitrogen on their processor
get over it. "fast enough" has been achieved. speed is only the concern now of a small minority of power users
we disagree on many things, and there are strange outliers of bizarre opinions, such as yourself
but by and large the majority of us agree on certain things, such as with what you just listed, and so we overrule your stated desires on this subject
don't worry about it though, society changes over time. for example, a number of states are now allowing gays to marry. california is more and more interested in legalizing marijuana. give it enough time, maybe society will come around to your love of crack houses. or not
an emotional argument sets social policy way before one based on logic ever will. because emotion moves people to act. logic and reason meanwhile don't make people to do anything. the idea is to argue your emotional convictions with logic and reason: that beats other emotional arguments that are less logical and reasonable. but if all you have is logic and reason with you, and no emotion, you are utterly doomed to 100% failure
what else can we mount on gun handles?
on
Tactical Camera
·
· Score: 1
cell phone? look like your contemplating suicide all the time
laser pointer? really give your presentation that extra POW
pencil or pen? is it really mightier than the sword now?
the point is, there's many things you could put a gun handle on, and announce to the world "i lack the social skills to understand what makes people uncomfortable around me or i am an antisocial loner is actively trying to chase people away from me"
all at the same time making yourself 100x more vulnerable to getting shot by the police!
i would in fact be incredibly freaking stupid if i was saying what you seem to think i am saying. but you are really reacting to a position which only exists in your mind, and certainly doesn't exist in anything i wrote
so it would help if in discussing subject matter you could stay on topic, and react to what someone is actually saying, rather than fear-addled hysterical notions that only exist in your mind about what someone is saying
you are confusing multiple issues on multiple levels. work clearly through the frustrated ball of issues you are presenting, focus clearly on what i am saying and what i am not saying, then rephrase accordingly. good luck kid
Slashdot Mirror
the intent to censor child pornography is spotless
the schemes thought so far are atrocious, and drift far from that purpose
but don't think my words endorse any particular poorly thought out scheme that strays far form the effort of filtering child porn
but if someone soemday DOES devise a scheme that hits JUST child porn, how could you argue with that?
from the most liberal dutchman to the most conservative saudi
censoring child pornography is nothing remotely like censoring political speech
and if country A censors child pornography, while country B censors political speech, they are not anywhere near comparable
and yet you see people all the time, especially on slashdot, actually saying "country A censors child porn so how can it criticize another country for censoring political opinion?"
they can, and they should, and they are perfectly entitled too
as yes there actually ARE some things, like child porn, that SHOULD be censored, according to ANY ideology
do NOT sit on the copier machine with pants down at google hq
and I think that...
hmm
mmm
hmmmm
mmm
oh!
anyway, what did you ask?
its not as if you don't have services to offer, no? if anyone wants to use your intellectual creations to their fullest, surely they should go straight to the intellectual creator?
the idea that you can constrain who gets your intellectual creations is the backasswards way of thinking about how to maximize your profit. you shouldn't constrain who gets your intellectual creations at all. you should maximize the exposure your creations get, cementing your reputation, and creating a golden calling card for anyone who wants to expand upon your efforts with your help
of course, they might not want your help. as if anyone who would buy your book wants your help either. but here's the important part: for every one person who wants your help, who bought your book, there are ten people who want your help, because they got your book for free. free=maximium exposure. and then the income from those ten revenue sources and work sources outmatches the income from all of the book sales
where he did some back of the envelope calculations... lung capacity, lifetime, time since death, amount of atoms in the air, relative rate of organic material exchange with the atmosphere, dispersal rates, etc...
and he came to the remarkable (or, rather, unremarkable) conclusion that every time you inhale, you inhale something like 200 atoms of socrates. i mean, 200 atoms that made up the living, breathing philosopher from ancient greece. go ahead, inhale: 200 atoms of the man known as socrates just went inside you
i guess you really need to "inhale" to find transcendant trippiness over that fact i suppose ;-)
anyway, look: they are talking picogram quantities here. whatever. you can find picogram quantities of all sorts of outlandish stuff in the air of any city. anthrax, estrogen, plutonium... its all rather sensationalistic and pointless
because the laughter heightens the experience
the death of the movie house was predicted because of tv in the 1950s for chirssake. and the business still grew. vcr, dvd, internet: it was all supposed to kill movie houses. every year the business does bigger business. why do people go to church instead of receive spiritual enlightenment at home by themselves? because we are social animals. despite babies and cell phones, people actually like the laughs and oohs of the crowds around them, it enhances the experience of the movie
not that there aren't asocial outliers such as yourself. there's always cranks
fact is, they could make movie tickets $20/ head, have crying babies and cell phones as mandatory background noise, and moviehouses would still do gangbuster business
sure, you can talk about home theatre systems, which most people can't afford, and you can talk about inviting your friends over, which is not something easy to coordinate. not even your closest friends want to watch the latest crank high voltage movie with you on the spur of the moment, out of other commitments, they don't like that movie, or they actually do hate your smoking, etc. and just try to coordinate more than 2 friends. no: you're watching alone. which is lame
the moviegoing experience has a long and profitable future ahead of it, in spite of all the whiny cranks. because, in the end, your spoken words don't actually match your actions (that is, you whine, but still go back to the theatre anyways). or, if you actually don't go to the movie theatres for what are actually minor complaints, then you are just a vanishing small minority that can be safely ignored: the chronically unsatisfiable crank. your opinion has no meaningful value as to the behavior of most of us, as your opinion and behavior is a tiny minority of actual human behavior that has no resonance
tv was supposed to kill theatres, then vcrs, then dvds, the internet, then hd theatre... bullshit, bullshit, bullshit
this is the reality of the "dying" cinema:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
the music industry has been eaten alive by piracy, simply because digital delivery is the most convenient (you consume it by yourself with headphones primarily), and it's easy to pirate
however, movies are best enjoyed in a moviehouse, not a 17 inch monitor alone by yourself in the basement, so while movie piracy will be an issue (it will kill the dvd aftermarket and blockbuster/ netflix), it won't threaten moviehouses
the newspaper needs to be current info, so online material is actually superior to thrown on your doorstep the next morning. so newspapers are withering and dying
conversely, books are best enjoyed on paper pulp: durable, zero power usage, cheap as heck
i never understood the kindle or the appeal of it and i don't think it will ever make a big dent in the book reading public apart from the technophiles (people who obsessively buy new tech on the coolness quotient are not necessarily practical people)
ie, any country where the notion of individual rights are not well-respected
you have not remotely described anything that would happen in new york city or london
furthermore, to suppose that the existence of transit cameras is some sort of unstoppable corrosive battery acid that will subvert 400 years of enlightenment thinking reveals a lack of faith in western liberal thinking on your part, not on the part of western society
the pillars of these western liberal notions and the rights and freedoms they support are not impervious to damage, not in the least. but they are a lot stronger than you suppose, and to destroy them to the extent that you and others suggest would take a lot more concerted effort and a lot more societal changes than some stupid transit cameras
if you do not understand the last two sentences i have just written, you are most definitely a hysterical twit, operating on unfound fear, and not in the least upon reasonable thought
slashdot frequently decries mass hysteria, yet fears of television cameras to capture speeders is apparently the gateway to the downfall of western civilization and liberal/libertarian ideals. gee, maybe its just to catch speeders?
i try to find the reason for this peculiar slashdot hysteria, and i really can't find the reason why a bunch of otherwise intelligent people go so bonkers over transit cameras. maybe it is just that some people here take the symbolism of 1984 as if it were divine infallible revelation. that the book is just a halfbaked work of fiction, whose implications have absolutely nothing to do with the reality we find ourselves in today, is apparently besides the point
for example: little brother. orwell never considered this. the idea being, anyone with a cell phone camera has the same surveillance technology as the state and can use that against the state in collusion with other individuals, a la rodney king. the implications of this technological balance between the individual and the state, even though rodney king happened almost twenty years ago, is apparently completely beyond some of you great minds to even consider. no: transit cameras are an unstoppable identity destroying force, a slippery slope into totalitarian fascism, and we have no defense against it. huh? how about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
is this the future as presaged by orwell? you can't consider that REAL LIFE example? no: orwell's FICTION laid it all out, and it is unquestionable divine revelation? are you paranoid schizophrenics?
its as if slashdot takes orwell as some sort of infallible prophet, and no one actually applies any mental effort to analyze what he actually writes, to come to conclusion: gee, nice science fiction story, absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CURRENT REALITY. EVER
some of you would laugh at superstitious illiterate 3rd world rural people who might believe, for example, that giving them the evil eye would give them cancer, or that taking their picture steals a bit of their soul
this is exactly how i think of some of you. so many of you take with unthinking devotion the idea that speeding cameras are equivalent to a slippery slope to totalitarian fascism. its absolutely hilarious, the panty twisting stupidity of this notion. really
frankly, i find no difference between some of your thinking on george orwell's cheesy fiction and the thinking religious fundamentalists and their sacred texts
enjoy geroge orwell, please. i especially liked "animal farm". but some of you really have to update some of your frankly ridiculous blind assumptions on camera technology and western civilization. you are quite the laughing stock the way some of you get worked up into a tizzy over what is frankly, not the slightest big deal
you may now mod me troll and continue your groupthink whineathon about how speeding camaras are fascism
airheaded twits
in the internet age
just travel back in time and redo the script. keep doing that until you guaranteed a blockbuster
just make sure to save the whales, and that joan collins gets hit by a truck
tangential rant: time travel is the absolute lamest aspect of star trek. i haven't seen any good science fiction come out of time travel plots except perhaps the terminator storyline. if you can alter time, where is the tension in the plot? it lets the air of the tires, so to say, in terms of suspending your disbelief for payoff. time travel is a completely lame premise in all science fiction, and that includes the current start trek movie. i can't believe that star trek writers can't write compelling script without this lame crutch. please stop
all of the analysis of hacker standard operating procedure is they want to maximize their power or their financial gain. this is in fact the motivation for 99% of people who commit any crime in this world
however, there is a small subset of criminal in this world who does what he does for only one reason: he just desires destruction out of pure teenaged nihilistic impulse: why throw rocks at windows? just to hear the glass break. there is no leverage over such a person, nor logical analysis of their motivation. and they will eventually get their hands on a botnet someday, and execute the "nuclear option" out of simple glee. as long as they don't get their hands on a real nuke i suppose
what, like nixon?
i don't think you have the faintest clue what "sovereign immunity" means. perhaps you saw it as a plot twist in a bad hollywood movie. try educating yourself in reality next time
choose jobs based on their location in midtown manhattan
cost: $0 (excluding extra wear and tear on shoes and extra calorie consumption)
not exactly an option for everyone, but it keeps me thin to boot
never doubt the power of korean gamer alliterative laughter either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy
why can't it work for you?
of course, wiping your disk after start of litigation opens you up to destruction of evidence
so all you have to is structure your attitude towards the courts, and the nature of how you wipe according the RNC playbook, and you can should be able to give yourself enough plausible deniability to let yourself off the hook. "whoops! how'd that happen?"
pirates should learn from the best crooks, the past administration, when it comes to the destruction of electronic evidence
or i suppose there exists some sort of double standard between the elites and the commoners in a country supposedly standing for western liberal ideals about fair play and equality? naahhhh...
while they aren't hobbits, they are similarly ancient, diminuitive peoples of southeast asia whose history may be instructive of how succeeding waves of human and proto-humans competed with and replaced each other. based on the experience of the aeta, i wouldn't be surprised if the last flores hobbit died at the sharp end of a homo sapien's stick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito
essentially, ancient remnant isolated melanesian populations in largely malay and thai areas across indonesia, malaysia, the philippines, and thailand. the malays took over the coastal areas over time, and now the aeta live in tiny mountain tribes. they also existed in china until recently. han and malay peoples just either outright exterminated them, outcompeted them, or genetically intermarried and swamped them out of existence
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-black-african-foundation-of-china-honouring-the-aboriginal-black-people-of-china/
in the philippines, the aeta famously came to light after the eruption of mount pinatubo, and this isolated group of peoples, probably living on the mountain isolated for hundreds if not thousands of years, were suddenly driven into the modern world
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/11/MN206799.DTL
the island of negros in the philippines gets its name from the spanish who found large numbers of aeta who lived there, at one time. now the island is almost completely malay
the dutch hurried along the process of the supplanting of the aeta with more cooperative malay slaves by genocidally emptying some strategic spice islands because the aetas proved uncooperative in the profitable nutmeg trade:
"this argument conveniently ignores the massive price differential."
except where my argument specifically refers to the price differential maybe?
stems from the daily body count of urban dwellers due to rural dwellers insistence on carrying around firearms. were it possible to have different gun laws for the urban dweller versus the rural dweller, i'd support the avergae rural hick's desire to have guns. which i understand: the police are far away. but as it is, right now, urban dwellers suffer for the sake of what rural dwellers want. yet we outnumber you. so i think it is time, in proper democratic fashion, that we reverse this equation and rural dwellers begin suffer for the sake of what urban dwellers want
yes, in my world, there will be rural dwellers who will be the mortal victims of a crime because they were denied access to a firearm. this is in opposition to the orders of magnitude more urban dwellers who are mortal victims of morons running around with guns in today's world. therefore, my world is superior to the present status quo
a lot of these changes in speed are not noticeable. not many users care about the difference between 10ms and 100ms (unless it stacks of course). so vista is slower because when you hover over a placeholder in the taskbar, you get a little graphical popup of the window in question. do users like this? do they not? what is the trade off in speed? if it is on the order of 90ms, no one is really going to care, regardless of the marginal usability increases
to reverse the argument, look at the popularity of netbooks: a laptop with a cellphone's processor. this is acceptable to most because they aren't playing the latest fps or running photoshop, they are just reading email and web surfing, and the price differential makes it worthwhile. not that windows 7 won't be more expensive than a free os, i'm just dismantling the notion that the average user cares that much about speed at all
we are at an age where "fast enough and cheaper" is more important than "fastest". and yes, windows 7 is trying its darndest to compete on those principles in the netbook arena. stop poopooing windows 7's speed and start focusing on the gains that free os is making in the netbook arena, and focus on leveraging and extending those gains while microsoft scrambles to stay relevant
kind of like how the wii stole the thunder from the monster processing power of playstation 3: most people don't care about some redhead's hyperrealistic flowing hair. they just want a little pubhouse dartboard-and-foosball level time wasting light hearted fun. slower (and cheaper) is the new frontier nowadays. speed just isn't that big of a deal anymore. speed is a 1990s era concern of guys pouring liquid nitrogen on their processor
get over it. "fast enough" has been achieved. speed is only the concern now of a small minority of power users
we disagree on many things, and there are strange outliers of bizarre opinions, such as yourself
but by and large the majority of us agree on certain things, such as with what you just listed, and so we overrule your stated desires on this subject
don't worry about it though, society changes over time. for example, a number of states are now allowing gays to marry. california is more and more interested in legalizing marijuana. give it enough time, maybe society will come around to your love of crack houses. or not
an emotional argument sets social policy way before one based on logic ever will. because emotion moves people to act. logic and reason meanwhile don't make people to do anything. the idea is to argue your emotional convictions with logic and reason: that beats other emotional arguments that are less logical and reasonable. but if all you have is logic and reason with you, and no emotion, you are utterly doomed to 100% failure
cell phone? look like your contemplating suicide all the time
laser pointer? really give your presentation that extra POW
pencil or pen? is it really mightier than the sword now?
the point is, there's many things you could put a gun handle on, and announce to the world "i lack the social skills to understand what makes people uncomfortable around me or i am an antisocial loner is actively trying to chase people away from me"
all at the same time making yourself 100x more vulnerable to getting shot by the police!
stupidest. most. useless. mod. ever.
i would in fact be incredibly freaking stupid if i was saying what you seem to think i am saying. but you are really reacting to a position which only exists in your mind, and certainly doesn't exist in anything i wrote
so it would help if in discussing subject matter you could stay on topic, and react to what someone is actually saying, rather than fear-addled hysterical notions that only exist in your mind about what someone is saying
you are confusing multiple issues on multiple levels. work clearly through the frustrated ball of issues you are presenting, focus clearly on what i am saying and what i am not saying, then rephrase accordingly. good luck kid