as for my ad hominem, i doubted that the person was older than 13 years old
you'll notice he replied, and stated he was slightly older than that
in other words, based on his faulty thinking, an inability to consider all of the concepts in play, demonstrating most probably an inexperience with all of the concepts, i suspected be was an immature person, and my suspicion was confirmed
so there is no ad hominem attack, unless you are saying it is an insult or an attack to call someone a teenager
likewise, i doubt you are very cognitively mature, seeing as you have an inkling of rhetorical terminology, but not a very good grasp on how to actually use those rhetorical terms correctly
that punitive decisions against the government are in actuality punitive decisions against the people. however, the government can and should and must suffer for doing the wrong thing, even though the eventual financial toll falls on the people. this is because the eventual toll for the government doing something wrong also falls on the people, so the people suffer no matter what happens
furthermore, the news generated and the bad press of such a trial affects the current ruling party, so there is an interest in not seeing such punitive action ever seeing the light of day, meaning that the need to maintain correct lists is important, and receives such care and diligence, only because the threats of punitive action exists
so, for example, the webserver is in moldova: you need to censor it, because you can't shut it down. according to the most socially liberal and libertarian of moralities, you have a duty to censor child pornography
effectiveness, impact, any argument you are making: completely pointless and besides the fact
if you encounter child pornography, you fight it. whatever that entails, even if you think it is a token gesture. to ignore or accept child pornography as inevitable is not an intellectually or morally coherent position to take, according to any moral code in any society on the planet
plenty of behavior in any civilization happens that is incredibly difficult to stop entirely. that doesn' tmean you don't fight it. it also doesn't mean you accept it. what you do is you wage a continual low grade war agains tit you can never win. that you can never win the war doesn't mean you don't fight it
you make trash. every week, you take the trash out to the curb. you, in maintaining your house or apartment, are engaged in a "war on trash". you will never win this war. so, o you stop taking out the trash and live in your filth?
one of the effects of resisting fight, and not accepting things like child pornography is you minimize it. making it more difficult to get, but not impossible to get, actually makes a difference on its quantity. so this is what you live with
but you don't accept it. this is intellectually and morally incoherent, according to any morality
a dutch court of law finds a website to be serving up child pornography and deserves to be shut down. the police have been given full powers to shut down the webserver by any means necessary. the dutch political establishment, the press, and the popular majority are all for shutting down the site
the webserver is located in moldova
the moldovan government responds "we have reviewed your request and will advise you upon receipt of bribe, i mean, proper consideration for our request for tanks. i mean, ALL YOUR GAS PIPELINE ARE BELONG TO US. end transmission"
you can't always shut down the webserver. sometimes, you need to block, and you have every right and duty to block
and it IS censorship, and according to the most libertarian and socially liberal notions, it is your right and duty to censor. and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. in fact, it is wrong, according to libertarian and socially liberal morality, to NOT censor the site
i understand the argument of some people here: the list can have errors, therefore, the list idea is bogus
but this argument is ineffective: the list can be fixed. there can even be punitive damage costs delivered to anyone shown to be put on the list in error, which i would suggest, to make sure governments don't block carelessly. let a law be established where the government can me made to suffer dearly financially for blocking content that is deemed permissible in an open court of law. but what is not going to happen, nor should happen, is that the list itself should go away
i am going to receive flak from slashdot in general, but here goes: there is actually material on the internet that even the most socially liberal, libertarian-minded society would find objectionable, and has every right AND duty to block
that doesn't mean there is tons of content that is currently blocked by one government or another that is blocked wrongly. plenty of blocked material fails any morally or intellectually coherent test for validity of being blocked. but that doesn't mean there is actual genuine content out there that society has a right, and a duty, to block
look: you lose the argument if your argument is nothing should be blocked
but you WIN the argument if you say plenty of stuff is blocked wrongly
change the nature of your argument and your fight. but if you keep up with the fight that nothing should be blocked, you lose and are further marginalized in the argument. and it is an important argument, so that governments don't start blocking content without impunity, and that their block lists are transparent to the public and reviewable and vetoable
THAT is the important the fight. but the fight against the idea of blocking is over. it is happening, and will happen. get used to it. if you can't make peace with this fact, you have left the realm of the coherent argument and society is not listening to you
when you go to europe you pass over the greenwich meridian, and all of your numbers convert to metric. but all of the mission parameters were calculated in imperial units. so when the rockets fired over the azores at the preprogrammed 10 fathoms per chain to slow descent, it actually came out as 10 decinewtons per centimeter. which of course leads to a splashdown in morocco, which is too hot this time of year for civilized interplanetary exploration
in the meantime, reality unfortunately dictates you are stuck with batteries, the bus stop, and an empty bed
of course batteries suck. it is not good enough for you to want something better than what we all realize is an awful compromise
so stop stating the braindead obvious and go out and go out and make what you want real. you will find out what we all have found out already: current technology makes it incrediby difficult to do better than heavy weak slowly charging nasty batteries
your capacitors and flywheels, for instance: not as stable as batteries
now they are cut off from the world, and utterly devoid of understanding why television went away or how to get their television back
yes, they have been broadcasting infomercials about the transition for months. but you are talking about people set in their ways, with brittle minds, who wouldn't even conceive of the infomercials as having to do with them
of course the transition should happen, and you can't avoid people getting lost in the transition, but it's still sad
a bunch of old people are utterly adrift from their daily routine today, and they have no clue why
you probably exerted more effort and time than a shift at a fast food restaurant, and wound up with less money, and didn't have mob run casinos red flagging you every time you go in a door. that's WHY you didn't have a visit to a room with no cameras with some intimidating fellas: its just $200
now if you were making $2,000 ok, its worth your effort. $20,000 even better. but then the casinos wouldn't just ask you to leave
your average middle class high school kid can buy $500 HD editting software and a $1K HD camera and have more power in his rec room than the average major hollywood studio in 1969
plus, biology is not limited like chemistry or physics: you might know how to make nerve gas or plutonium, but you still need very expensive materials and equipment well beyond your means as a middle class kid. but all genetic hacking requires is biochemical manipulations around us in every microorganism, and nutrients as cheap as your breakfast cereal (or, your actual breakfast cereal). only technology is limited today, and that is getting cheaper and cheaper every day. 10 years ago, it was a huge deal to sequence the human genome and it took millions of dollars and months. now they are talking about doing it in a few days and for $5K and doing it for individuals to tailor their drug regimen. extrapolate into the future
it's a little scary to think about a future where "script kiddie" and "hacker" could refer to a high school kid who can cook up smallpox or polio in his rec room
just a faster one. getting rejected out of hand by people and employers you don't want to associate with in the first place is not in any way a negative
imagine a hypothetical: the guy got the job with such an employer, just because they didn't google his name. well, the character and personality of the employer is still the same. so now the guy is in a situation where his work will be disregarded for bullshit reasons
but if the employer had googled him and disregarded him for employment for such a tenuous connection in the first place, then all the better for the guy, to never have been involved with an employer that would be such a negative experience in the first place
for you, the word "anonymous" means "i wish it were anonymous"
walk on an empty beach, and talk to someone. the crash surf will drown out your voices beyond a few feet. anonymous
talking on a telephone, or posting on the internet, or dropping a letter in the mail, is an act of putting your communication into a system beyond your control. depending upon that communication to be anonymous is an impossibility. the law can say whatever the hell it wants. it can wrtie in 24 red point font that anyone, including the government, snooping on your communications in network will be skinned alive. doesn't change the fact that your communication is, essentially, not anonymous. feel me now?
look, if you have something to say that is so important as to be anonymous, go to that person, close the damn door, and say it to them
but if you type it, phone it, mail it: it's non anonymous
your packets traversed a number of hops. at each hop, your packet and its origin were visible to someone. who is at each hop?
once slashdot's server got your packets, it made a little notation in a database about where they got the packet from. and that information sits there in that databse, for who knows how long, completely beyond your control
and you are saying this series of events is private?
private, to me, is sitting in your room with a close friend. you say something to them, the words go to their ears, and bounce off some walls, and disapate. and the rest of the world knows nothing about what was said
and you think this is like posting on the internet?
you accept the notion of having a government. good. now you say your problem is that it is too large or too small according to some sort of standard. you don't tell me what that standard is, you just allude to a nebulous kinship with the founding fathers
"As such it needs to operate within clearly-defined limits"
who defines those limiting terms? who sets those limits? who measures affinity with those limits?
and even more importantly, who ENFORCES that?
some sort of metagovernment?
of course not, you would say no to that... ideally, the limits are determined, and enforced, by the people themselves. agreed?
sounds fundamentalist foundingfatherist enough for you?
ok then: but that's exactly what we already have!
you already have EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT: a self-correcting mechanism to keep the government as trim as it should be, or as fat as it should be
its called DEMOCRACY
behold:
1. if we elect a government that massively bloats the bureaucracy, we get angry, some politician senses that anger, and gets elected on that platform, and shrinks the government
2. if we elect a government that massively cuts services, we get angry, some politician senses that anger, and gets elected on that platform, and increases government services
so what exactly is your problem again?...however, i'll bring my point home further, to fatally destroy your pov: if you sense that the government is too bloated, but you are part of a fringe few with that view, and the vast amjority seem ok with the size of the government, then nothing changes. because, according to the wishes and wisdom of the founding fathers, you are minority voice on the issue, and, according to the democratic principles of the country you live in, your desires to shrink the government are not expressed
i'd go out and start my own damn company, then interview my former boss for a position
ideas are power in the world of technology. asking your employees to give them to you for a fucking raffle (seriously?) is like buying the island of manhattan for trinkets. if my idea is good enough, i deserve a reward better than something akin to an "employee of the month" plaque at mcdonalds
but don't worry, you'll still get plenty of ideas. all sparse, vague, and minor: you get what you pay for
if you want a serious reply to your question, if you actually want good ideas that actually offers serious enough implications for your company's future OFFER THEM STOCK AND AN EQUITY STAKE
not a fucking raffle. frankly, your quesiton is insulting
for all of your criticisms of government, having no government is even worse
your negative observations of government occur in a vacuum, free of any context. when examined in context, the context of realizing the good governments do and the context of realizing the much worse evils that occur without any government at all, means that your prosecution of the very idea of government itself is just a form of insanity on your part
actually, i am wrong in my initial comment, about obama only carrying a blackberry. absolutely, 100% wrong. but that hasn't been the topic in the post in which i was arguing with you. and yet your prosecutorial glee hasn't missed a beat, even though the topic has completely changed, meaning the argument isn't even the point anymore, just some impoverished need on your part
read back on a few comments. you keep changing the subject. or rather, you keep embellishing the discussion with points that only exist in your mind, then attack those points, as if i were the one making them. for example: you refer to giving blackberries to relatives in africa. and you attack this absurdity. as well you should, it is absurd. however, you have to notice something: I NEVER FUCKING SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT
i don't even need to be in the conversation anymore, you're arguing with topics and opinions that only exist in your mind. oh sure, you attribute them to me, but again, according to your own internal logic, not because of anything i ACTUALLY said. a concept appears in your mind, you attribute it to me, you notice how insane it is, this fills you with incredulity at how crazy someone is for thinking it, and then you attack
what keeps you going is your prosecutorial glee. its so important to you to keep arguing, you will exert energy retaining the contentious nature of the discussion, because being right isn't really the issue for you anymore. its the pressing need on your part to persecute me, to be masterfully right about how wrong i am. this is more important for you than keeping track of the fucking topic of discussion
so all we are really left with this sort of social retardation on your behalf. your social development has been cloistered in some way. people often project their problems on to others, its a way to work out their problems for themselves. how i react becomes an issue for your mind to explore about how you should react in the same scenario, perhaps where you were being mercilessly persecuted. this weighs heavily in your mind. you are recreating your victimhood by victimizing others in the same way, to see how they react. well, now you know: zzz
you've probablty been yelled at a lot. alienated from peers, due to bad social hygiene, or maybe through no fault of your own at all: you're not very paranoid, otherwise, i wouldn't have to explain the concept of espionage to you. so you are probably mentally sound. perhaps you are indeed some tragic victim of social isolation and commiserate poor social development
good luck kid. clean up your social interaction abilities, you'll go far in life. you're very tenacious, which is a good thing to be in life. but your social abilities lag behind, and so your tenaciousness becomes a warped benefit, like the fast sprinter who keeps launching himself into a wall
you want to shout things in the train station, and no one will notice what you are saying is extremely private and powerful, and perhaps can be used against you or to profit. you expect completely random anonymous people to also be 100% virtuous in their interaction with you. surely, most will be. but not everyone. someone will notice what you are shouting can be used for some sort of profit on their part, and then go ahead and profit from you at your expense. or perhaps you are talking about the complete miscreant, who's only profit is making you miserable. after all, like you said, it is anonymous, how do they suffer for making you suffer, especially when you don't even know who is snooping on you?
say i am a cheating spouse, and i arrange to meet at a bar with my mistress. it is possible my wife or a friend of hers can go in that bar, and notice me with my mistress. do i have a valid expectation that this can't happen? unlikely, but can i expect "privacy" in that bar?
or perhaps some sort of indignant anonymous vigilante overhears my conversation with my mistress from the next table, and infers what is going on, and gets involved out of simple spite. how am i protected from that? how do i have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a PUBLIC venue?
in my own house or apartment: YES, i expect privacy, and it is valid for me to do so
you refer to a concept: "my definition of privacy was having nobody in the station able to identify me". what do you mean by "identify" you. know your biography? identifying ENOUGH about you to make a negative impact on your life is the issue here. and a person needs to now very little about you to represent a threat to you. especially when you are busy shouting private things in a middle of a train station. which is why no one shouts in the middle of a train station unless they are schizophrenic
the whole point is: when you are in a public space, you cannot expect any privacy. beginning and ending of entire discussion on the issue
and the internet is a public space. it is as simple as that
Slashdot Mirror
point out my logical fallacy
as for my ad hominem, i doubted that the person was older than 13 years old
you'll notice he replied, and stated he was slightly older than that
in other words, based on his faulty thinking, an inability to consider all of the concepts in play, demonstrating most probably an inexperience with all of the concepts, i suspected be was an immature person, and my suspicion was confirmed
so there is no ad hominem attack, unless you are saying it is an insult or an attack to call someone a teenager
likewise, i doubt you are very cognitively mature, seeing as you have an inkling of rhetorical terminology, but not a very good grasp on how to actually use those rhetorical terms correctly
and it is not the only tool at our disposal
along with the other weapons we have for fighting child pornography, censorship is a valid and valuable part of the arsenal
what do you suggest, not fight it at all?
fight it with methods that is worse than the child pornography itself?
(and no, censorship is not one of those methods)
please: try to define to me a better way to fight child pornography
or try to define censorship of child pornography websites as somehow worse than child pornography
or, try to argue that not fighting it at all is the best course of action
rather than censor it
and you speak of morality?
this term, "morality", i don't think you understand it
best that you not talk any more about morality, until you have further matured and have gained a better understanding of the concepts involved
for your sake, god i hope you are only 13 years old
that punitive decisions against the government are in actuality punitive decisions against the people. however, the government can and should and must suffer for doing the wrong thing, even though the eventual financial toll falls on the people. this is because the eventual toll for the government doing something wrong also falls on the people, so the people suffer no matter what happens
furthermore, the news generated and the bad press of such a trial affects the current ruling party, so there is an interest in not seeing such punitive action ever seeing the light of day, meaning that the need to maintain correct lists is important, and receives such care and diligence, only because the threats of punitive action exists
so, for example, the webserver is in moldova: you need to censor it, because you can't shut it down. according to the most socially liberal and libertarian of moralities, you have a duty to censor child pornography
effectiveness, impact, any argument you are making: completely pointless and besides the fact
if you encounter child pornography, you fight it. whatever that entails, even if you think it is a token gesture. to ignore or accept child pornography as inevitable is not an intellectually or morally coherent position to take, according to any moral code in any society on the planet
plenty of behavior in any civilization happens that is incredibly difficult to stop entirely. that doesn' tmean you don't fight it. it also doesn't mean you accept it. what you do is you wage a continual low grade war agains tit you can never win. that you can never win the war doesn't mean you don't fight it
you make trash. every week, you take the trash out to the curb. you, in maintaining your house or apartment, are engaged in a "war on trash". you will never win this war. so, o you stop taking out the trash and live in your filth?
one of the effects of resisting fight, and not accepting things like child pornography is you minimize it. making it more difficult to get, but not impossible to get, actually makes a difference on its quantity. so this is what you live with
but you don't accept it. this is intellectually and morally incoherent, according to any morality
a dutch court of law finds a website to be serving up child pornography and deserves to be shut down. the police have been given full powers to shut down the webserver by any means necessary. the dutch political establishment, the press, and the popular majority are all for shutting down the site
the webserver is located in moldova
the moldovan government responds "we have reviewed your request and will advise you upon receipt of bribe, i mean, proper consideration for our request for tanks. i mean, ALL YOUR GAS PIPELINE ARE BELONG TO US. end transmission"
you can't always shut down the webserver. sometimes, you need to block, and you have every right and duty to block
and it IS censorship, and according to the most libertarian and socially liberal notions, it is your right and duty to censor. and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. in fact, it is wrong, according to libertarian and socially liberal morality, to NOT censor the site
i understand the argument of some people here: the list can have errors, therefore, the list idea is bogus
but this argument is ineffective: the list can be fixed. there can even be punitive damage costs delivered to anyone shown to be put on the list in error, which i would suggest, to make sure governments don't block carelessly. let a law be established where the government can me made to suffer dearly financially for blocking content that is deemed permissible in an open court of law. but what is not going to happen, nor should happen, is that the list itself should go away
i am going to receive flak from slashdot in general, but here goes: there is actually material on the internet that even the most socially liberal, libertarian-minded society would find objectionable, and has every right AND duty to block
that doesn't mean there is tons of content that is currently blocked by one government or another that is blocked wrongly. plenty of blocked material fails any morally or intellectually coherent test for validity of being blocked. but that doesn't mean there is actual genuine content out there that society has a right, and a duty, to block
look: you lose the argument if your argument is nothing should be blocked
but you WIN the argument if you say plenty of stuff is blocked wrongly
change the nature of your argument and your fight. but if you keep up with the fight that nothing should be blocked, you lose and are further marginalized in the argument. and it is an important argument, so that governments don't start blocking content without impunity, and that their block lists are transparent to the public and reviewable and vetoable
THAT is the important the fight. but the fight against the idea of blocking is over. it is happening, and will happen. get used to it. if you can't make peace with this fact, you have left the realm of the coherent argument and society is not listening to you
when you go to europe you pass over the greenwich meridian, and all of your numbers convert to metric. but all of the mission parameters were calculated in imperial units. so when the rockets fired over the azores at the preprogrammed 10 fathoms per chain to slow descent, it actually came out as 10 decinewtons per centimeter. which of course leads to a splashdown in morocco, which is too hot this time of year for civilized interplanetary exploration
and i want jessica biel in my bed
in the meantime, reality unfortunately dictates you are stuck with batteries, the bus stop, and an empty bed
of course batteries suck. it is not good enough for you to want something better than what we all realize is an awful compromise
so stop stating the braindead obvious and go out and go out and make what you want real. you will find out what we all have found out already: current technology makes it incrediby difficult to do better than heavy weak slowly charging nasty batteries
your capacitors and flywheels, for instance: not as stable as batteries
and television is pretty much their only outlet
now they are cut off from the world, and utterly devoid of understanding why television went away or how to get their television back
yes, they have been broadcasting infomercials about the transition for months. but you are talking about people set in their ways, with brittle minds, who wouldn't even conceive of the infomercials as having to do with them
of course the transition should happen, and you can't avoid people getting lost in the transition, but it's still sad
a bunch of old people are utterly adrift from their daily routine today, and they have no clue why
and since HR is responsible for hiring the people in that company, how can you deduce that the people there are nice to work with?
HR is the gatekeeper, they let in the people they want. if their criteria sucks, then the people they hire will suck too
you probably exerted more effort and time than a shift at a fast food restaurant, and wound up with less money, and didn't have mob run casinos red flagging you every time you go in a door. that's WHY you didn't have a visit to a room with no cameras with some intimidating fellas: its just $200
now if you were making $2,000 ok, its worth your effort. $20,000 even better. but then the casinos wouldn't just ask you to leave
technological progress marches on
your average middle class high school kid can buy $500 HD editting software and a $1K HD camera and have more power in his rec room than the average major hollywood studio in 1969
plus, biology is not limited like chemistry or physics: you might know how to make nerve gas or plutonium, but you still need very expensive materials and equipment well beyond your means as a middle class kid. but all genetic hacking requires is biochemical manipulations around us in every microorganism, and nutrients as cheap as your breakfast cereal (or, your actual breakfast cereal). only technology is limited today, and that is getting cheaper and cheaper every day. 10 years ago, it was a huge deal to sequence the human genome and it took millions of dollars and months. now they are talking about doing it in a few days and for $5K and doing it for individuals to tailor their drug regimen. extrapolate into the future
it's a little scary to think about a future where "script kiddie" and "hacker" could refer to a high school kid who can cook up smallpox or polio in his rec room
just a faster one. getting rejected out of hand by people and employers you don't want to associate with in the first place is not in any way a negative
imagine a hypothetical: the guy got the job with such an employer, just because they didn't google his name. well, the character and personality of the employer is still the same. so now the guy is in a situation where his work will be disregarded for bullshit reasons
but if the employer had googled him and disregarded him for employment for such a tenuous connection in the first place, then all the better for the guy, to never have been involved with an employer that would be such a negative experience in the first place
for you, the word "anonymous" means "i wish it were anonymous"
walk on an empty beach, and talk to someone. the crash surf will drown out your voices beyond a few feet. anonymous
talking on a telephone, or posting on the internet, or dropping a letter in the mail, is an act of putting your communication into a system beyond your control. depending upon that communication to be anonymous is an impossibility. the law can say whatever the hell it wants. it can wrtie in 24 red point font that anyone, including the government, snooping on your communications in network will be skinned alive. doesn't change the fact that your communication is, essentially, not anonymous. feel me now?
look, if you have something to say that is so important as to be anonymous, go to that person, close the damn door, and say it to them
but if you type it, phone it, mail it: it's non anonymous
it's a really simple concept
your packets traversed a number of hops. at each hop, your packet and its origin were visible to someone. who is at each hop?
once slashdot's server got your packets, it made a little notation in a database about where they got the packet from. and that information sits there in that databse, for who knows how long, completely beyond your control
and you are saying this series of events is private?
private, to me, is sitting in your room with a close friend. you say something to them, the words go to their ears, and bounce off some walls, and disapate. and the rest of the world knows nothing about what was said
and you think this is like posting on the internet?
seriously?
where does this expectation come from?
i am a massive fount of rage
projecting dude
you think the internet is like a telephone conversation
he said in a wide open thread
that anyone navigating to slashdot can read
on the internet
seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
you accept the notion of having a government. good. now you say your problem is that it is too large or too small according to some sort of standard. you don't tell me what that standard is, you just allude to a nebulous kinship with the founding fathers
"As such it needs to operate within clearly-defined limits"
who defines those limiting terms? who sets those limits? who measures affinity with those limits?
and even more importantly, who ENFORCES that?
some sort of metagovernment?
of course not, you would say no to that... ideally, the limits are determined, and enforced, by the people themselves. agreed?
sounds fundamentalist foundingfatherist enough for you?
ok then: but that's exactly what we already have!
you already have EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT: a self-correcting mechanism to keep the government as trim as it should be, or as fat as it should be
its called DEMOCRACY
behold:
1. if we elect a government that massively bloats the bureaucracy, we get angry, some politician senses that anger, and gets elected on that platform, and shrinks the government
2. if we elect a government that massively cuts services, we get angry, some politician senses that anger, and gets elected on that platform, and increases government services
so what exactly is your problem again? ...however, i'll bring my point home further, to fatally destroy your pov: if you sense that the government is too bloated, but you are part of a fringe few with that view, and the vast amjority seem ok with the size of the government, then nothing changes. because, according to the wishes and wisdom of the founding fathers, you are minority voice on the issue, and, according to the democratic principles of the country you live in, your desires to shrink the government are not expressed
deal with it
the indignation, still the same
how's that work again dude?
i'd go out and start my own damn company, then interview my former boss for a position
ideas are power in the world of technology. asking your employees to give them to you for a fucking raffle (seriously?) is like buying the island of manhattan for trinkets. if my idea is good enough, i deserve a reward better than something akin to an "employee of the month" plaque at mcdonalds
but don't worry, you'll still get plenty of ideas. all sparse, vague, and minor: you get what you pay for
if you want a serious reply to your question, if you actually want good ideas that actually offers serious enough implications for your company's future OFFER THEM STOCK AND AN EQUITY STAKE
not a fucking raffle. frankly, your quesiton is insulting
for all of your criticisms of government, having no government is even worse
your negative observations of government occur in a vacuum, free of any context. when examined in context, the context of realizing the good governments do and the context of realizing the much worse evils that occur without any government at all, means that your prosecution of the very idea of government itself is just a form of insanity on your part
actually, i am wrong in my initial comment, about obama only carrying a blackberry. absolutely, 100% wrong. but that hasn't been the topic in the post in which i was arguing with you. and yet your prosecutorial glee hasn't missed a beat, even though the topic has completely changed, meaning the argument isn't even the point anymore, just some impoverished need on your part
read back on a few comments. you keep changing the subject. or rather, you keep embellishing the discussion with points that only exist in your mind, then attack those points, as if i were the one making them. for example: you refer to giving blackberries to relatives in africa. and you attack this absurdity. as well you should, it is absurd. however, you have to notice something: I NEVER FUCKING SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT
i don't even need to be in the conversation anymore, you're arguing with topics and opinions that only exist in your mind. oh sure, you attribute them to me, but again, according to your own internal logic, not because of anything i ACTUALLY said. a concept appears in your mind, you attribute it to me, you notice how insane it is, this fills you with incredulity at how crazy someone is for thinking it, and then you attack
what keeps you going is your prosecutorial glee. its so important to you to keep arguing, you will exert energy retaining the contentious nature of the discussion, because being right isn't really the issue for you anymore. its the pressing need on your part to persecute me, to be masterfully right about how wrong i am. this is more important for you than keeping track of the fucking topic of discussion
so all we are really left with this sort of social retardation on your behalf. your social development has been cloistered in some way. people often project their problems on to others, its a way to work out their problems for themselves. how i react becomes an issue for your mind to explore about how you should react in the same scenario, perhaps where you were being mercilessly persecuted. this weighs heavily in your mind. you are recreating your victimhood by victimizing others in the same way, to see how they react. well, now you know: zzz
you've probablty been yelled at a lot. alienated from peers, due to bad social hygiene, or maybe through no fault of your own at all: you're not very paranoid, otherwise, i wouldn't have to explain the concept of espionage to you. so you are probably mentally sound. perhaps you are indeed some tragic victim of social isolation and commiserate poor social development
good luck kid. clean up your social interaction abilities, you'll go far in life. you're very tenacious, which is a good thing to be in life. but your social abilities lag behind, and so your tenaciousness becomes a warped benefit, like the fast sprinter who keeps launching himself into a wall
you want to shout things in the train station, and no one will notice what you are saying is extremely private and powerful, and perhaps can be used against you or to profit. you expect completely random anonymous people to also be 100% virtuous in their interaction with you. surely, most will be. but not everyone. someone will notice what you are shouting can be used for some sort of profit on their part, and then go ahead and profit from you at your expense. or perhaps you are talking about the complete miscreant, who's only profit is making you miserable. after all, like you said, it is anonymous, how do they suffer for making you suffer, especially when you don't even know who is snooping on you?
say i am a cheating spouse, and i arrange to meet at a bar with my mistress. it is possible my wife or a friend of hers can go in that bar, and notice me with my mistress. do i have a valid expectation that this can't happen? unlikely, but can i expect "privacy" in that bar?
or perhaps some sort of indignant anonymous vigilante overhears my conversation with my mistress from the next table, and infers what is going on, and gets involved out of simple spite. how am i protected from that? how do i have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a PUBLIC venue?
in my own house or apartment: YES, i expect privacy, and it is valid for me to do so
you refer to a concept: "my definition of privacy was having nobody in the station able to identify me". what do you mean by "identify" you. know your biography? identifying ENOUGH about you to make a negative impact on your life is the issue here. and a person needs to now very little about you to represent a threat to you. especially when you are busy shouting private things in a middle of a train station. which is why no one shouts in the middle of a train station unless they are schizophrenic
the whole point is: when you are in a public space, you cannot expect any privacy. beginning and ending of entire discussion on the issue
and the internet is a public space. it is as simple as that
your stubbornness
it's quite awesome really
to argue a moronic point beyond all semblance of common sense and intelligence, its quite the spectacle to behold
perhaps we can stick your stubborn blindness up to a generator, you can help us get off our reliance on foreign oil?
(snicker)