but not for the usual partisan reasons you think i would say so
george senior should have taken saddam hussein out of business in 1991. that was the real mistake. anything after that was secondary in nature to that initial failure to finish the job completely
you could say it was another demonstration of american spinelessness (in the eyes of al qaeda types, not in my eyes) that emboldened them to think something like 9/11 would make the usa back down. the first and biggest demonstration of american spinelessness (again, according to al qaeda types, not according to me) that emboldened american enemies in the middle east was under another republican administration too. this time, that republican mythic figure, reagan: leaving lebanon after the 1983 beirut barracks bombing
1983 beirut, more than anything else, taught al qaeda types (erroneously) that attacking americans would make them retreat. 9/11 is the fruit of reagan's and bush's decisions to back down in the face of hostilities in the middle east. lack of resolve in 1983 and 1991 taught al qaeda types that americans back down from confrontation
not that clinton helped, but clinton wasn't as thoroughly tested. the 1998 african embassy bombings were responded with a few missiles into empty encampments in the afghan desert and a deserted aspirin factory in sudan. the first world trade center bombing in 1993 was a dud. so clinton wasn't tested, so his failures, or not, in maintaining resolve aren't as manifest in emboldening al qaeda types
its funny then to see republicans constantly blathering about democratic lack of resolve, when the greatest failures of resolve in the eyes of our enemies in the middle east has been under republican administrations
there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, most of it predicated on learned helplessness, a pathological inability to trust, or a bullshit rationalization of laziness: "my vote doesn't matter"
thats two and half million florida voters, who thought "my vote doesn't matter"
they gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy, of going full retard on science policy (stem cells, creationism), etc. none of these things gore would have done (an argument, btw, against another bullshit rationalization not to vote: "the candidates are the same")
over two and a half million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush, since its usually the young and minorities who feel disenfrachized, and invent bullshit reasons not to vote
the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people
in other words, parasitical attitudes about not voting destroy democracy
you MUST vote. otherwise, you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. you destroy this country by allowing less favored candidates win. and you really have NO right to complain about the next 4 years about anythign in politics if you do not vote. voting is your chance to let your beliefs sway who goes into the white house. if you choose not to do that, you are beneath withering contempt in my book, and have no right to complain anymore about the state of your world
"Once you are past the tipping point, any further votes are not warped, they are unnecessary and a waste."
this is how you think about your vote
but if the way you think about your vote is logically valid, it is something we should all embrace. and if more people didn't vote simply because "my vote doesn't matter", then no one votes, or, more accurately, the election is decided by the random few who do vote. in places like california or new york (where i live, and i voted democratic, and new york is going democratic if i didn't vote), the state could swing republican if so many democrats think like you do (and in fact, many do, and it is a major problem, since it means republicans win where they otherwise wouldn't)
here is a direct demoonstration of that:
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:
2,912,790 to 2,912,253
that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore
in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:
8,752,717 to 6,138,765
thats two million florida voters, who THINKING EXACTLY LIKE YOU THINK, gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy. over 2 million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush
people, who think just like you, are the kind of people who gave us 8 years of bush
the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, like you, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people
in other words, parsitical attitudes like yours destroy democracy
you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. it is people who think just like you who destroy this country
brave republican real american patriot-scientists working with paper ballots in swing states have found that there are thousands of votes that have a big clear black checkmark next to the name obama. but if you use steganographic analysis of various coffee stains, fingerprint smears, and other seemingly random marks on the ballot, you can deduce the voter actually intended to vote for mccain
these voters were under duress from the deranged liberal commie fascist media we are all familiar with, in such a way that they had to hide their true intentions via steganographic voting. luckily, these brave republican patriot real american cryptographers have been able to rescue tens of thousands of votes for mccain that seemingly say obama with a big bold X
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system. bush could have won the popular vote and lost the ec election in 2000. it favors neither left nor right
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking hard for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote, its a very lame excuse on your part to think you don't matter, when you most certainly do still matter
then the question is: why are you looking for an excuse not to matter? if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's something wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement. your rationalization for not voting because of the ec points to character flaws you possess. it tells us that you invent excuses not to matter, not to care, walling yourself off from the world by thinking about how you can't affect any change in your world, in utterly helpless ways. self-fulfilling prophecy
your excuse not to vote is wrong, and lame. the ec is a tweak on your vote, not a nullification of it. you need to think long and hard about the way you think about your relationship with your world and remove some deeply seeded issues with trust you have
are you a mennonite? amish? they are the modern day offspring of that medieval religious movement
or are you like someone who calls themselves cathar (another medieval christian sect the catholics massacred) or manichaen (a dualistic religion from persia, st augustine converted from manichaeism to christianity)
that is, someone who professes a dead religion just to sound cool and different?
even if mccain won, none of the things you say woudl come to pass
your problem is you are confusing popularity with power. certianly, the usa has become immensely unpopular under bush, but it has lost none of its power. continue bush's policies though, and it WOULD lose power, but not because of anything you worte, but simply because america's ability to create and project power would be diminished because of internal factors
for example, before the global economic meltdown over the last 2 months, there was much hemming and hawing about becoming a non-us centered world, economically. however, as the meltdown progressed, the us dollar perversely gained in value. simply because, even though the problem was started in the usa, it was still the most stable thing still standing as the whole world went down with the usa
someday, the usa will indeed not be the center of the world economically and militarily. but it won't be for any of the flowery and powerless popularity contest-level considerations you put forth, but simply becaus esome other country, such as china, will siply be able to create and project economic and military power, again, simply because of internal efforts, having nothign whatsoever to do with what the rest of the world thinks of china
your understanding of how the world actually works is quite... silly
for example: "Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES."
any country that woudl be foolish enough to do that, would see their economy suffer, since americna businessmen wouldn't be able to get in the country and do business. do you know any country then that would give up millions or billions simply to make a statement that they hate americans?
again, learn: popularity is not the same thing as power
it is possible to be deeply hated, but be in complete control
it is also possible, by the way, hint hint, to be loved everywhere you go in the world, but be absolutely powerless to affect any change about any issue you care about
no, the truth is, even if obama wins (and please god, let him win), the usa will be hated by many (and loved by some), and see its power still quite large in the world, but still slowly dimming while china slowly amps up. and this would be true even if mccain won
not taking or taking responsibility for breaking the cup in the kitchen is besides the point, when republicans are clearly responsible for sinking the entire ship in the last 8 years:
1. a pointless war in iraq 2. no oversight of wall street resulting in a horrible crash 3. fumbling hurricane karina to the point of looking like they cared less about american citizens than iraqis 4. massive new deficit 5. going full retard on basic science (supporting creationism, denying stem cell research, etc.) 6. etc.
yes, democrats and republicans have both made mistakes in the last 8 years, but the awful, huge, major embarassing mistakes made by the republican leadership dwarfs anything you could pin in the democrats in the last 8 years
previously, you sign your name on a sheet, and go vote
this year, they had TWO sheets, and we signed our name twice. the second, new sheet, had a number next to our name. i didn't know what that number was for until i just read your comment here
but i don't think they can match a name to a vote, unless they serialize all the votes, and trust the sign in sheet to match the same voting order exactly... which is not necessarily a perfect match, as people coming from the sign in desk to the voting machine were often out of order in which they signed the sheet
so, yes, odd, i wonder at the point of the exercise. but i don't see a massive privacy breach here
most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)
the rare, but real, scenario of the gun owner successfully and heroically using his gun to defeat crime is outnumbered, statistically, with all of the other scenarios where things don't end up so successfully or heroically, because you had a gun with you
i have found all statistics to be complete bullshit, fabricated, misinterpretted, taken out of context, etc. for gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts
so meet me on pure logic and reason, or don't meet me at all
you analyze rates of ok corral scenarios in a vacuum above
meanwhile, i am comparing rates of scenario instances for example, i am in a given situation where i am being threatened by a criminal with a gun
1. if i have no gun, i capitulate to the criminal's demands. the criminal's demands result in my death due to the criminal being a sick fuck in x% of scenarios
2. if i have a gun, i rebuff the criminal's demands. the resulting conflict results in my death due to me being on the losing end of a gun fight in y% of scenarios
it is my assertion that y > x
therefore, for the sake of staying alive, i choose not to carry a gun. of course, this means i have a much greater chance of being victimized by criminals. perhaps many times. but i have a better chance of not being dead. because i am calculating that my chance of running into a sick fuck and me being unarmed, is less than the chance of me running into a criminal with a better trigger finger or better luck than me and me being armed
which is, confronting criminals. they SHOULD carry guns. but that has absolutely zero lessons for what civilians have to consider about whether to carry a gun or not. the rate at which police encounter criminals, and the occasional sick demented fuck, is vastly higher than any civilian. which means comparing the risk assessment for a policeman carrying a gun versus that for a cilivian is absurd
"Why do they? To assert their will. In the end, nakedly facing an enemy with a weapon means you've lost. That person can do whatever he wants with-- you are his slave. Most of us don't want to live like that, and we're willing to increase the risk of dying to avoid a fate worse than death."
this is exactly what i said in another post in this thread:
but its a psychological difference: i think a psychological profile of your average gun enthusiast would reveal issues with power, and the need to be certain they had the ultimate upper hand. this need to remain in power, viscerally, on matters of life or death, i think points to a history of vioent victimization or ongoing abuse in the psychological history of the average gun enthusiast. such that they vow never to be victimized again, because staying in power is more important to them than losing their life
meanwhile, the average non gun owner simply wants to live, go ahead, have the damn vcr. they have no issues with losing power temporarily if it means they get to have a better chance at staying alive
so, i directly contradict you: "Most of us don't want to live like that, and we're willing to increase the risk of dying to avoid a fate worse than death"
no. actually, most of us would rather lose a vcr and momentarily lose power in our lives than always maintain absolute visceral power, with the unavoidable and direct increase in our chance of dying. owning a gun absolutely gives you more power, but it also absolutely raises the stakes in confrontations from one of losing a vcr or not to one of losing your life or not. i'd rather lose power and be helpless for a moment and lose a vcr, than lose my life. i absolutely understand what is at stake, and so do you. but i question your need to remain in constant visceral power at the cost of everything else, including the possiblity that you may die being increased
"I also think you're underestimating the proportion of sick fucks."
for an organization the size of the air force, and with the mandate it has, there is nothing laughable or overly ambitious about say, creating and implementing your own supersecure protocol, and supporting it within its subnet
and, if successful, watch it leave its military surroundings, be adapted by universities, then corporations, then the general public
kind of like the internet itself
somebody is going to do this at some point, considering the various shortcomings of our present dominant protocol suite
that it would be the military to do it first makes sense
there also many gun owners who are not with us today, because in a confrontation, things escalated to deadliness that did not have to escalate to deadliness, had there been no gun around
that which is released harmlessly online is not released in the real world
therefore, online rage leads to less real world rage
the existence of such people is absolutely real
on
D.I.Y. Home Security
·
· Score: 0
call the possiblity of ecountering them rate x
rate y would be the possibility of escalating a conflict with an intruder who does not have such sick intentions into the realm of deadly consequences, for the gun owner, as well as the criminal
ignore the peril to the criminal's life, thats not material
what is material is the threat to the gun owner's life. and rate y > rate x
such that not owning a gun increases your chance of being victimized by a sick fuck, but decreases your chance of being dead, over all, considering all possible scenarios where a gun in your hands escalates the stakes of a confrontation unnecessarily
because before video games existed, mankind was pastoral and peaceful. in fact, if you go back to the days of the romans, when violent media meant crude stick figure drawings on a wall, everyone was loving and logical and reasonable and bountiful with good intent and no desire to to be aggressive
(rolls eyes)
humanity is in its essence violent and sexual. don't believe me? go look at a bunch of 3 year olds for 5 minutes. you tell me that they are acting the way they do because of media with a straight face. humans are not some pure vessels who are corrupted by outside forces. humans are born corrupt (where corrupt=possessing violent and sexual tendencies that are not socially appropiate). violent and sexual media, for psychologically well-adjusted people, is simply a way to jettison bad tendencies we all possess in asocial and harmless and therefore appropriate ways. where do these tendencies get jettisoned if that "bad" media did not exist?
if someone acts violent, it is because of that person's own failures, or their parents, not some media somewhere. if you, dear social conservatives, want to refute this notion, then kindly relinquish any intellectual honesty you might think you have when talking about the concept of personal responsibility. because the position of blame the individual, not the media, is the essence of personal responsibility: if i do something bad, i am accountable for it, no one else. meanwhile, attempts to blame outside influences, "bad" media, is simply a lame attempt to avoid responsibility
so dear social conservatives: 1. blame the media, 2. or continue talking about personal responsibility with a straight face but you can't do both at the same time
in fact, the truth is, modern civilization's advances in media: movies, video games, etc., has served as a way to harmlessly express violent and sexual nature inherent in us, not amplify or create that which wasn't already there. that which is released harmlessly on a computer keyboard is that which is not expressed in a real world situation. the modern world we live in, while still containing violent and inappropriate sexual behavior (and always will, as long as you are talking about human beings) is far more peaceful than the days of the romans, or the middle ages, or even 100 years ago. you can't get rid of our tendencies, but you can minimize them, by providing avenues for harmless catharsis, with violent and sexual media
all studies to the contrary are pure propaganda or are fundamentally flawed
want a more peaceful world with less rape? more porn, more violent media. i absolutely believe that
there is no such thing as a psychologically balanced individual who can't tell the difference between violent/hypersexual media and the real world. actually, there ARE in fact individuals who can't tell the difference. such individuals are alrerady organically psychologically damaged or raised horribly wrong by awful parents. and if they had never encountered any violent or sexual media, they would still commit trangressions. they just wouldn't have anything to blame and they wouldn't have a ready audience in social conservatives who don't want to accept violent and sexual essential human nature out of some cotton candy idealism, and who willingly embrace the ridiculous attempt by criminals to avoid responsibility and blame the devil, the media
is not giving value to and considering the range of different possible negative outcomes. there is not one outcome in all of scenarios, but different outcomes depending upon the existence of a gun or not in the hands of the victim
the most obvious difference is being robbery victim versus being dead
when you don't own a gun, your chance of being victimized goes skyhigh to almost certainty, absolutely. but also when you own a gun, your chance of being dead actually goes down appreciably
in this calculus of possible outcomes is the difference between the entrenched difference in opinion of the perceived value gun ownership between gun owners versus gun nonowners
certainly, there are sick fucks in this world who kill without reason, and would shoot an unarmed victim simply for the thrill, or a number of other sick reasons. these people are real. but they are also quite rare. your chance of meeting one of them in a confrontation is far smaller than meeting a garden variety armed thief who just wants your vcr. if you have a gun, you then enter into an ok corral scenario where your life is at risk that you would not have entered into had you not owned a gun
a gun increases your ability to control confrontations, but it also escalates what is at stake in a confrontation. sometimes, it is just better to be a victim, to be powerless, to lose your vcr, than raise your chance of losing your life, simply for having a gun, just for the sake of a stupid vcr
but its a psychological difference: i think a psychological profile of your average gun enthusiast would reveal issues with power, and the need to be certain they had the ultimate upper hand. this need to remain in power, viscerally, on matters of life or death, i think points to a history of vioent victimization or ongoing abuse in the psychological history of the average gun enthusiast. such that they vow never to be victimized again, because staying in power is more important to them than losing their life
meanwhile, the average non gun owner simply wants to live, go ahead, have the damn vcr. they have no issues with losing power temporarily if it means they get to have a better chance at staying alive
guns are owned as a deterrent, but their effect is paradoxical: they attract that which is sought to be deterred
situationally, you owning a gun increases your chance of getting shot, in a myriad of ways and how things play out differently when you have a gun nearby. your scenario above is but one of millions that play out towards more violence and bloodshed when you have a gun
and plenty of times, that violence and bloodshed is visited on the criminal rather than the victim. but MOST times in how the entire universe of possibilities play out, more violence and bloodshed is visited on you, simply because you have a gun
want to avoid being victimized? own a gun. want to avoid being shot? don't own a gun. please note that being a victim and being shot are two entirely different outcomes
now, i'd rather lose my dvd player than my life, but i actually don't think that gun owners are somehow more stupid that they don't realize the logic at work with gun ownership
instead, it's psychological: some people would rather risk death than live with the shame of being a victim. i think that if you did a psychological profile of your average enthusiastic gun owner, you would find in their history an event in which they were victimized and shamed and perhaps abused. pride asserts itself, and they vow never to be victimized like this again, even if they logically realize gun ownership increases their chance of death
for some people in this world, pride is more important than life. but unfortunately, the rule of guns being in your proximity increasing your chance of being shot does not only apply to the gun owner, but also his neighbors. such that not only gun owners suffer for valuing their pride over their life. we all do
1. what happens now is a healthy underground trade in wireless frequency blockers (or cloners, however the system works: absence of signal indicating intrusion versus presence of signal indicating intrusion). you can't do that with a wired system. i hardly think some cheap doodads are doing anything complicated with their signal that would defeat a blocker/ cloner
2. additionally, now don't you have to change tons of little batteries all over the house? people think its a pain to remember changing the fire alarm batteries at daylight savings time changeovers. now they have to run around every 12 months changing specialty batteries on dozens of wireless intrusion gadgets too?
of course there are plenty of ways to defeat wired systems. none of which also don't apply to wireless systems. you would need battery backups, cell backups, etc., on both. but still, the wired seems inherently more, ehem, secure, if you are going to all of the trouble of not just buying a dog
that supplies cd images online with their own mini boot os, updated monthly, that you download, burn, and then reboot into via cd
90% of users wouldn't bother. its just a giant hassle. but amongst the ultraparanoid, which you are if you know even just a little about what goes on out there, it would be a nice piece of mind guarantor
of course, this product probably already exists. in which case PLEASE TELL ME WHERE;-)
Slashdot Mirror
but not for the usual partisan reasons you think i would say so
george senior should have taken saddam hussein out of business in 1991. that was the real mistake. anything after that was secondary in nature to that initial failure to finish the job completely
you could say it was another demonstration of american spinelessness (in the eyes of al qaeda types, not in my eyes) that emboldened them to think something like 9/11 would make the usa back down. the first and biggest demonstration of american spinelessness (again, according to al qaeda types, not according to me) that emboldened american enemies in the middle east was under another republican administration too. this time, that republican mythic figure, reagan: leaving lebanon after the 1983 beirut barracks bombing
1983 beirut, more than anything else, taught al qaeda types (erroneously) that attacking americans would make them retreat. 9/11 is the fruit of reagan's and bush's decisions to back down in the face of hostilities in the middle east. lack of resolve in 1983 and 1991 taught al qaeda types that americans back down from confrontation
not that clinton helped, but clinton wasn't as thoroughly tested. the 1998 african embassy bombings were responded with a few missiles into empty encampments in the afghan desert and a deserted aspirin factory in sudan. the first world trade center bombing in 1993 was a dud. so clinton wasn't tested, so his failures, or not, in maintaining resolve aren't as manifest in emboldening al qaeda types
its funny then to see republicans constantly blathering about democratic lack of resolve, when the greatest failures of resolve in the eyes of our enemies in the middle east has been under republican administrations
but the real mistake wasn't george w's, it was george senior's. saddam hussein should have been taken out in 1991
the new "in" fashion statement amongst the crackpots will be magnets tied to your head to protect from alien radiation?
there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, most of it predicated on learned helplessness, a pathological inability to trust, or a bullshit rationalization of laziness: "my vote doesn't matter"
why your vote matters:
2,912,790 to 2,912,253
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=
that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore
it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes
meanwhile, in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:
8,752,717 to 6,138,765
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE= [state.fl.us]
thats two and half million florida voters, who thought "my vote doesn't matter"
they gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy, of going full retard on science policy (stem cells, creationism), etc. none of these things gore would have done (an argument, btw, against another bullshit rationalization not to vote: "the candidates are the same")
over two and a half million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush, since its usually the young and minorities who feel disenfrachized, and invent bullshit reasons not to vote
the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people
in other words, parasitical attitudes about not voting destroy democracy
you MUST vote. otherwise, you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. you destroy this country by allowing less favored candidates win. and you really have NO right to complain about the next 4 years about anythign in politics if you do not vote. voting is your chance to let your beliefs sway who goes into the white house. if you choose not to do that, you are beneath withering contempt in my book, and have no right to complain anymore about the state of your world
"Once you are past the tipping point, any further votes are not warped, they are unnecessary and a waste."
this is how you think about your vote
but if the way you think about your vote is logically valid, it is something we should all embrace. and if more people didn't vote simply because "my vote doesn't matter", then no one votes, or, more accurately, the election is decided by the random few who do vote. in places like california or new york (where i live, and i voted democratic, and new york is going democratic if i didn't vote), the state could swing republican if so many democrats think like you do (and in fact, many do, and it is a major problem, since it means republicans win where they otherwise wouldn't)
here is a direct demoonstration of that:
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:
2,912,790 to 2,912,253
that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=
it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes
in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:
8,752,717 to 6,138,765
thats two million florida voters, who THINKING EXACTLY LIKE YOU THINK, gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy. over 2 million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE=
people, who think just like you, are the kind of people who gave us 8 years of bush
the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, like you, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people
in other words, parsitical attitudes like yours destroy democracy
you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. it is people who think just like you who destroy this country
brave republican real american patriot-scientists working with paper ballots in swing states have found that there are thousands of votes that have a big clear black checkmark next to the name obama. but if you use steganographic analysis of various coffee stains, fingerprint smears, and other seemingly random marks on the ballot, you can deduce the voter actually intended to vote for mccain
these voters were under duress from the deranged liberal commie fascist media we are all familiar with, in such a way that they had to hide their true intentions via steganographic voting. luckily, these brave republican patriot real american cryptographers have been able to rescue tens of thousands of votes for mccain that seemingly say obama with a big bold X
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system. bush could have won the popular vote and lost the ec election in 2000. it favors neither left nor right
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking hard for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote, its a very lame excuse on your part to think you don't matter, when you most certainly do still matter
then the question is: why are you looking for an excuse not to matter? if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's something wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement. your rationalization for not voting because of the ec points to character flaws you possess. it tells us that you invent excuses not to matter, not to care, walling yourself off from the world by thinking about how you can't affect any change in your world, in utterly helpless ways. self-fulfilling prophecy
your excuse not to vote is wrong, and lame. the ec is a tweak on your vote, not a nullification of it. you need to think long and hard about the way you think about your relationship with your world and remove some deeply seeded issues with trust you have
your psychological problems are showing
are you a mennonite? amish? they are the modern day offspring of that medieval religious movement
or are you like someone who calls themselves cathar (another medieval christian sect the catholics massacred) or manichaen (a dualistic religion from persia, st augustine converted from manichaeism to christianity)
that is, someone who professes a dead religion just to sound cool and different?
even if mccain won, none of the things you say woudl come to pass
your problem is you are confusing popularity with power. certianly, the usa has become immensely unpopular under bush, but it has lost none of its power. continue bush's policies though, and it WOULD lose power, but not because of anything you worte, but simply because america's ability to create and project power would be diminished because of internal factors
for example, before the global economic meltdown over the last 2 months, there was much hemming and hawing about becoming a non-us centered world, economically. however, as the meltdown progressed, the us dollar perversely gained in value. simply because, even though the problem was started in the usa, it was still the most stable thing still standing as the whole world went down with the usa
someday, the usa will indeed not be the center of the world economically and militarily. but it won't be for any of the flowery and powerless popularity contest-level considerations you put forth, but simply becaus esome other country, such as china, will siply be able to create and project economic and military power, again, simply because of internal efforts, having nothign whatsoever to do with what the rest of the world thinks of china
your understanding of how the world actually works is quite... silly
for example: "Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES."
any country that woudl be foolish enough to do that, would see their economy suffer, since americna businessmen wouldn't be able to get in the country and do business. do you know any country then that would give up millions or billions simply to make a statement that they hate americans?
again, learn: popularity is not the same thing as power
it is possible to be deeply hated, but be in complete control
it is also possible, by the way, hint hint, to be loved everywhere you go in the world, but be absolutely powerless to affect any change about any issue you care about
no, the truth is, even if obama wins (and please god, let him win), the usa will be hated by many (and loved by some), and see its power still quite large in the world, but still slowly dimming while china slowly amps up. and this would be true even if mccain won
power!=popularity
not taking or taking responsibility for breaking the cup in the kitchen is besides the point, when republicans are clearly responsible for sinking the entire ship in the last 8 years:
1. a pointless war in iraq
2. no oversight of wall street resulting in a horrible crash
3. fumbling hurricane karina to the point of looking like they cared less about american citizens than iraqis
4. massive new deficit
5. going full retard on basic science (supporting creationism, denying stem cell research, etc.)
6. etc.
yes, democrats and republicans have both made mistakes in the last 8 years, but the awful, huge, major embarassing mistakes made by the republican leadership dwarfs anything you could pin in the democrats in the last 8 years
never noticed that before
voter in new york state here too
previously, you sign your name on a sheet, and go vote
this year, they had TWO sheets, and we signed our name twice. the second, new sheet, had a number next to our name. i didn't know what that number was for until i just read your comment here
but i don't think they can match a name to a vote, unless they serialize all the votes, and trust the sign in sheet to match the same voting order exactly... which is not necessarily a perfect match, as people coming from the sign in desk to the voting machine were often out of order in which they signed the sheet
so, yes, odd, i wonder at the point of the exercise. but i don't see a massive privacy breach here
most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire#Midnight_voting_tradition
quaint and pointless mostly. this year, they landslided for obama (15 for obama to 6 for mccain)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707667.stm
why is that notable?
in all previous elections, back to 1968, they landslided republican
so that's an interesting changeup, north country new hampshire, solidly republican, giving us a glimpse of a new trend?
portent of things to come later this evening for the rest of us perhaps?
the deliciously ironic particle
the rare, but real, scenario of the gun owner successfully and heroically using his gun to defeat crime is outnumbered, statistically, with all of the other scenarios where things don't end up so successfully or heroically, because you had a gun with you
i have found all statistics to be complete bullshit, fabricated, misinterpretted, taken out of context, etc. for gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts
so meet me on pure logic and reason, or don't meet me at all
you analyze rates of ok corral scenarios in a vacuum above
meanwhile, i am comparing rates of scenario instances for example, i am in a given situation where i am being threatened by a criminal with a gun
1. if i have no gun, i capitulate to the criminal's demands. the criminal's demands result in my death due to the criminal being a sick fuck in x% of scenarios
2. if i have a gun, i rebuff the criminal's demands. the resulting conflict results in my death due to me being on the losing end of a gun fight in y% of scenarios
it is my assertion that y > x
therefore, for the sake of staying alive, i choose not to carry a gun. of course, this means i have a much greater chance of being victimized by criminals. perhaps many times. but i have a better chance of not being dead. because i am calculating that my chance of running into a sick fuck and me being unarmed, is less than the chance of me running into a criminal with a better trigger finger or better luck than me and me being armed
it seems like a pretty solid calculation to me
which is, confronting criminals. they SHOULD carry guns. but that has absolutely zero lessons for what civilians have to consider about whether to carry a gun or not. the rate at which police encounter criminals, and the occasional sick demented fuck, is vastly higher than any civilian. which means comparing the risk assessment for a policeman carrying a gun versus that for a cilivian is absurd
"Why do they? To assert their will. In the end, nakedly facing an enemy with a weapon means you've lost. That person can do whatever he wants with-- you are his slave. Most of us don't want to live like that, and we're willing to increase the risk of dying to avoid a fate worse than death."
this is exactly what i said in another post in this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1015863&cid=25612961
so, i directly contradict you: "Most of us don't want to live like that, and we're willing to increase the risk of dying to avoid a fate worse than death"
no. actually, most of us would rather lose a vcr and momentarily lose power in our lives than always maintain absolute visceral power, with the unavoidable and direct increase in our chance of dying. owning a gun absolutely gives you more power, but it also absolutely raises the stakes in confrontations from one of losing a vcr or not to one of losing your life or not. i'd rather lose power and be helpless for a moment and lose a vcr, than lose my life. i absolutely understand what is at stake, and so do you. but i question your need to remain in constant visceral power at the cost of everything else, including the possiblity that you may die being increased
"I also think you're underestimating the proportion of sick fucks."
nope. the real world is not a hollywood movie
for an organization the size of the air force, and with the mandate it has, there is nothing laughable or overly ambitious about say, creating and implementing your own supersecure protocol, and supporting it within its subnet
and, if successful, watch it leave its military surroundings, be adapted by universities, then corporations, then the general public
kind of like the internet itself
somebody is going to do this at some point, considering the various shortcomings of our present dominant protocol suite
that it would be the military to do it first makes sense
there also many gun owners who are not with us today, because in a confrontation, things escalated to deadliness that did not have to escalate to deadliness, had there been no gun around
that which is released harmlessly online is not released in the real world
therefore, online rage leads to less real world rage
call the possiblity of ecountering them rate x
rate y would be the possibility of escalating a conflict with an intruder who does not have such sick intentions into the realm of deadly consequences, for the gun owner, as well as the criminal
ignore the peril to the criminal's life, thats not material
what is material is the threat to the gun owner's life. and rate y > rate x
such that not owning a gun increases your chance of being victimized by a sick fuck, but decreases your chance of being dead, over all, considering all possible scenarios where a gun in your hands escalates the stakes of a confrontation unnecessarily
because before video games existed, mankind was pastoral and peaceful. in fact, if you go back to the days of the romans, when violent media meant crude stick figure drawings on a wall, everyone was loving and logical and reasonable and bountiful with good intent and no desire to to be aggressive
(rolls eyes)
humanity is in its essence violent and sexual. don't believe me? go look at a bunch of 3 year olds for 5 minutes. you tell me that they are acting the way they do because of media with a straight face. humans are not some pure vessels who are corrupted by outside forces. humans are born corrupt (where corrupt=possessing violent and sexual tendencies that are not socially appropiate). violent and sexual media, for psychologically well-adjusted people, is simply a way to jettison bad tendencies we all possess in asocial and harmless and therefore appropriate ways. where do these tendencies get jettisoned if that "bad" media did not exist?
if someone acts violent, it is because of that person's own failures, or their parents, not some media somewhere. if you, dear social conservatives, want to refute this notion, then kindly relinquish any intellectual honesty you might think you have when talking about the concept of personal responsibility. because the position of blame the individual, not the media, is the essence of personal responsibility: if i do something bad, i am accountable for it, no one else. meanwhile, attempts to blame outside influences, "bad" media, is simply a lame attempt to avoid responsibility
so dear social conservatives:
1. blame the media,
2. or continue talking about personal responsibility with a straight face
but you can't do both at the same time
in fact, the truth is, modern civilization's advances in media: movies, video games, etc., has served as a way to harmlessly express violent and sexual nature inherent in us, not amplify or create that which wasn't already there. that which is released harmlessly on a computer keyboard is that which is not expressed in a real world situation. the modern world we live in, while still containing violent and inappropriate sexual behavior (and always will, as long as you are talking about human beings) is far more peaceful than the days of the romans, or the middle ages, or even 100 years ago. you can't get rid of our tendencies, but you can minimize them, by providing avenues for harmless catharsis, with violent and sexual media
all studies to the contrary are pure propaganda or are fundamentally flawed
want a more peaceful world with less rape? more porn, more violent media. i absolutely believe that
there is no such thing as a psychologically balanced individual who can't tell the difference between violent/hypersexual media and the real world. actually, there ARE in fact individuals who can't tell the difference. such individuals are alrerady organically psychologically damaged or raised horribly wrong by awful parents. and if they had never encountered any violent or sexual media, they would still commit trangressions. they just wouldn't have anything to blame and they wouldn't have a ready audience in social conservatives who don't want to accept violent and sexual essential human nature out of some cotton candy idealism, and who willingly embrace the ridiculous attempt by criminals to avoid responsibility and blame the devil, the media
bullshit
is not giving value to and considering the range of different possible negative outcomes. there is not one outcome in all of scenarios, but different outcomes depending upon the existence of a gun or not in the hands of the victim
the most obvious difference is being robbery victim versus being dead
when you don't own a gun, your chance of being victimized goes skyhigh to almost certainty, absolutely. but also when you own a gun, your chance of being dead actually goes down appreciably
in this calculus of possible outcomes is the difference between the entrenched difference in opinion of the perceived value gun ownership between gun owners versus gun nonowners
certainly, there are sick fucks in this world who kill without reason, and would shoot an unarmed victim simply for the thrill, or a number of other sick reasons. these people are real. but they are also quite rare. your chance of meeting one of them in a confrontation is far smaller than meeting a garden variety armed thief who just wants your vcr. if you have a gun, you then enter into an ok corral scenario where your life is at risk that you would not have entered into had you not owned a gun
a gun increases your ability to control confrontations, but it also escalates what is at stake in a confrontation. sometimes, it is just better to be a victim, to be powerless, to lose your vcr, than raise your chance of losing your life, simply for having a gun, just for the sake of a stupid vcr
but its a psychological difference: i think a psychological profile of your average gun enthusiast would reveal issues with power, and the need to be certain they had the ultimate upper hand. this need to remain in power, viscerally, on matters of life or death, i think points to a history of vioent victimization or ongoing abuse in the psychological history of the average gun enthusiast. such that they vow never to be victimized again, because staying in power is more important to them than losing their life
meanwhile, the average non gun owner simply wants to live, go ahead, have the damn vcr. they have no issues with losing power temporarily if it means they get to have a better chance at staying alive
guns are owned as a deterrent, but their effect is paradoxical: they attract that which is sought to be deterred
situationally, you owning a gun increases your chance of getting shot, in a myriad of ways and how things play out differently when you have a gun nearby. your scenario above is but one of millions that play out towards more violence and bloodshed when you have a gun
and plenty of times, that violence and bloodshed is visited on the criminal rather than the victim. but MOST times in how the entire universe of possibilities play out, more violence and bloodshed is visited on you, simply because you have a gun
want to avoid being victimized? own a gun. want to avoid being shot? don't own a gun. please note that being a victim and being shot are two entirely different outcomes
now, i'd rather lose my dvd player than my life, but i actually don't think that gun owners are somehow more stupid that they don't realize the logic at work with gun ownership
instead, it's psychological: some people would rather risk death than live with the shame of being a victim. i think that if you did a psychological profile of your average enthusiastic gun owner, you would find in their history an event in which they were victimized and shamed and perhaps abused. pride asserts itself, and they vow never to be victimized like this again, even if they logically realize gun ownership increases their chance of death
for some people in this world, pride is more important than life. but unfortunately, the rule of guns being in your proximity increasing your chance of being shot does not only apply to the gun owner, but also his neighbors. such that not only gun owners suffer for valuing their pride over their life. we all do
1. what happens now is a healthy underground trade in wireless frequency blockers (or cloners, however the system works: absence of signal indicating intrusion versus presence of signal indicating intrusion). you can't do that with a wired system. i hardly think some cheap doodads are doing anything complicated with their signal that would defeat a blocker/ cloner
2. additionally, now don't you have to change tons of little batteries all over the house? people think its a pain to remember changing the fire alarm batteries at daylight savings time changeovers. now they have to run around every 12 months changing specialty batteries on dozens of wireless intrusion gadgets too?
of course there are plenty of ways to defeat wired systems. none of which also don't apply to wireless systems. you would need battery backups, cell backups, etc., on both. but still, the wired seems inherently more, ehem, secure, if you are going to all of the trouble of not just buying a dog
that supplies cd images online with their own mini boot os, updated monthly, that you download, burn, and then reboot into via cd
90% of users wouldn't bother. its just a giant hassle. but amongst the ultraparanoid, which you are if you know even just a little about what goes on out there, it would be a nice piece of mind guarantor
of course, this product probably already exists. in which case PLEASE TELL ME WHERE ;-)