The Democrats gutted welfare at the same time they exploded the prison population, called black people 'super predators', at the same time they did NAFTA. Then they deregulated Wall Street, which crashed the economy within 10 years. That's what Democrats did. Democrats did things that Ronald Reagan could only dream about, in his wet dreams. George HW Bush couldn't pass NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to do it. Bill Clinton gave the cover to the other corporate Democrats to go along with it. That was the beginning of the end for the working class in America.
Then the Democrats wag their finger at people with no money and no power, for not voting for a corporatist warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Why do you think the people in Michigan wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton? Maybe because she put half of them in fuckin' prison? Because she passed NAFTA, and Barack Obama was trying to sell TPP at the top of his lungs, at the same time she was trying to get working people to vote for her? They knew what the fuck was going on! That's why half the country didn't vote. But you're going to wag your finger at the people who actually do vote? Who come out and vote their conscience? You know what voting for the lesser of two evils gets you? Donald Trump!
First of all Capitalism and Fascism are completely incompatible. Fascism is totalitarian and only cares about industry in so far that it serves the state - it will therefore never allow free innovation to meet public demand which is the cornerstone of Capitalism. There would be no equivalent of McDonald's, SpaceX, porn sites or surplus of bad airplane novels in Hitler's Reich. This may sound like a good thing but is in fact a extreme restriction of free cultural expression.
When I see Antifa thugs dress all in black beating people up who disagree with them, I'm reminded of the fascist Nazi brown shirts, they seem to have far more in common with Nazism than anyone on the right.ï
These FISA court abuses are 50 times bigger than Watergate. Hillary essentially bought a FISA warrant to spy on her opponent. The FISA court was lied to by the FBI and DOJ in order to secure a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. What would you say if this had happened in a third world country? "Shrug, business as usual for that kind of place." Yeah, exactly. This is why it's 50 times bigger than Watergate.
I love how suddenly - after being solidly anti-law enforcement for decades, up to and including violent riots and the premeditated murder of police officers - the Left is suddenly in love with the FBI (wtf). They defend it fiercely against clear evidence of the kind of abuse they always claimed was going on. How did criminals with badges suddenly become great a pillar of Our Values? Oink, oink, I smell bacon. The Left defending the pigs. We are really through the looking glass here.
The real secret was that American traitor who spilled the biggest secret to the dirty foreigners - to concentrate Russian efforts on the swing states. If only someone in Hillary's campaign had known that, she might have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Live and learn!
That's the sad part about this whole thing: this is the Legislative branch, exercising its oversight of the FISA court which it established. They found abuses; they are now addressing those abuses. That the Executive branch is resisting tooth and nail and telling the Legislative branch that they are not under democratic control, that is the real scandal here. The attitude seems to be, "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and if you try to tell us no, we have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."
This is the same super-PC Google that fired a man for saying that men and women are different? It makes zero sense. Google thinks the human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism. Here's a common attitude by people who work there:
"Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn't assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them."
And treating people according to state and federal law...you mean firing them for expressing political views? You have a really weird viewpoint of Google as some sort of non-leftist entity.
Several of those are racist. Not everyone goes to college. How are you assuming that all the students will graduate and have jobs, and thus require filing tax returns? Everyone has a car...etc. This whole list is like "what's important to upper-middle class white children" and that is problematic.
WTF u joking bro? The villain of the movie is literally named "English socialism" or Ingsoc. The techniques portrayed in the book were developed in solidly left-wing governments that had murdered or imprisoned any right-wingers in their society. And your takeaway was "TEH NAZIS DID IT"? In George Orwell's 1984? Jeez louise, people are dense.
Then just have everyone doodle a picture of Mohammed. If you refuse, you don't get on the plane. In fact, we put you on the next plane back to Shitholestan. We don't need those kind of people in our nice country.
"Moving jobs to China" didn't happen in a vacuum. It was a deliberate decision, one that didn't need to be made. It's not some "natural process". It was an idiotic assumption that once China got rich by ruining our working class, that they would suddenly break out in democracy and flowers for everyone. Instead - oops! - it turned into a huge competitor and the China Model of authoritarian government is rocking the foundations of democracy. Even the New York Times publicly admired the China Model, saying it let politicians get things done without opposition.
"Get back to work" and "it's not about your feelings" from a hardcore Leftist. Gosh, funny how things do a complete 180 when it's someone whose points you don't want to listen to.
90 Russians and their paltry Facebook ad buy decided the election. I highly recommend that they be hired for any project. They are the most amazing marketers ever. They beat Hillary's $1.2 billion juggernaut with just $100k! It was like sinking a battleship with a hand grenade.
When even the New Yorker is ridiculing the idea that there is some great Russia conspiracy, you know it's all over but the crying:
https://www.newyorker.com/news...
"many of these ads did not violate our content policies. That means that for most of them, if they had been run by authentic individuals, anywhere, they could have remained on the platform."
Shouldn't you stop foreigners from meddling in US social issues?
The right to speak out on global issues that cross borders is an important principle. Organizations such as UNICEF, Oxfam or religious organizations depend on the ability to communicate â" and advertise â" their views in a wide range of countries. While we may not always agree with the positions of those who would speak on issues here, we believe in their right to do so â" just as we believe in the right of Americans to express opinions on issues in other countries.
- the ads were non-political in nature, and didn't feature or favour a political candidate
- 56% of the ads were run AFTER the 2016 US federal election
- 25% of the ads were never displayed to anyone due to Facebook's algorithms not finding them relevant to trending interests
- only 25% of the ads were geographically-targeted
- Facebook is not sure that the ads were part of an organized campaign
- Facebook is not sure that the accounts the ads were purchased with are associated with each other
- Facebook is not certain that the ads were purchased by Russians
- many of the ads were not purchased using Russia's currency
- huge numbers of actual political ads are bought and run on Facebook from all countries around the world, and that is normal and OK
- the "overwhelming majority" of ad-space purchases from Russia by Russians are normal and not suspicious in any way
So, after a year of investigations and debunked conspiracy / false claim after debunked conspiracy / false claim, the strongest argument for alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US federal election is $100K of non-political or partisan Facebook ads - more than half of which ran after the election, and a quarter of which never ran at all. That's telling.
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."
"[There is] no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election."
Their techniques are amazingly powerful and they are the world's best persuaders. We need to give them jobs, they are head and shoulders better at their jobs than anyone in our society. Right?
When even the New Yorker is ridiculing the idea that there is some great Russia conspiracy, you know it's all over but the crying: https://www.newyorker.com/news...
Trump's tweet about Moscow laughing its ass off was unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate. Loyal Putinites and dissident intellectuals alike are remarkably united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous. The intellectuals are amused to see Americans so struck by an indictment that adds virtually nothing to a piece published in the Russian media outlet RBC, back in October; I wrote https://www.newyorker.com/news... at the time that the article showed the Russian effort to be more of a cacophony than a conspiracy. The Kremlin and its media are, as Joshua Yaffa writes https://www.newyorker.com/news..., tickled to be taken so seriously. Their sub-grammatical imitations of American political rhetoric, their overtures to the most marginal of political players, are suddenly at the very heart of American political life. This is the sort of thing Russians have done for decades, dating back at least to the early days of the Cold War, but those efforts were always relegated to the dustbin of history before they even began.
Goldman, the Facebook V.P., has seen more of the Russian ads and posts than most Americans, and his imagination clearly strains to accommodate the push to take them seriously. It's hard to square words like "sophisticated" (frequently used by the Times to describe the Russian campaign) with posts like one from an apparently fake L.G.B.T. group promoting something called "Buff Bernie: A Coloring Book for Berniacs" http://www.nydailynews.com/new... with catchy English-language copy: "The coloring is something that suits for all people." It's hard to apply the description "bold covert effort" (used by Politico https://www.politico.com/story...) to the enormous amount of social-network static https://twitter.com/AdrianChen... that Russian trolls produced. To Goldman, it may all look like a giant gray mass in which only a few colorful ads and posts have any meaningâ"and that meaning is hard to discern.
It is exceedingly unlikely that we will ever have a clear understanding of whether Russian meddling affected the outcome of the election. But a huge number of Americans imagine that it did. They imagine that exposure to a foreign effort to muddle American politics can fundamentally change the fate of this countryâ"and by imagining it, they render the country all the more muddled, divided, and vulnerable.
This was written in 1853 by Charles Tomlinson, and is only an excerpt of the the treatise, but it shows that people recognized that 'security' trough obscurity was not really security at all, way before the digital age. (sorry for the double post, screwed up the formatting and it was a wall of text)
A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties.
Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear -- milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.
...The unscrupulous have the command of much of this kind of knowledge without our aid; and there is moral and commercial justice in placing on their guard those who might possibly suffer therefrom. We employ these stray expressions concerning adulteration, debasement, roguery, and so forth, simply as a mode of illustrating a principle -- the advantage of publicity. In respect to lock-making, there can scarcely be such a thing as dishonesty of intention: the inventor produces a lock which he honestly thinks will posess such and such qualities; and he declares his belief to the world. If others differ from him in opinion concerning those qualities, it is open to them to say so; and the discussion, truthfully conducted, must lead to public advantage: the discussion stimulates curiosity, and curiosity stimulates invention. Nothing but a partial and limited view of the question could lead to the opinion that harm can result: if there be harm, it will be much more than counterbalanced by good.
Actually that is a very efficient way for an attractive woman to get an unwanted task done. Pawn it off on some beta male who secretly longs for her, but who she knows has no chance. She can string him along for a long time while extracting resources from him. As soon as he loses faith and stops contributing, she loses him and finds another. I sure wish people would do things for me just because they find me attractive.
This was written in 1853 by Charles Tomlinson, and is only an excerpt of the the treatise, but it shows that people recognized that 'security' trough obscurity was not really security at all, way before the digital age.
A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties.
Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear -- milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased....The unscrupulous have the command of much of this kind of knowledge without our aid; and there is moral and commercial justice in placing on their guard those who might possibly suffer therefrom. We employ these stray expressions concerning adulteration, debasement, roguery, and so forth, simply as a mode of illustrating a principle -- the advantage of publicity. In respect to lock-making, there can scarcely be such a thing as dishonesty of intention: the inventor produces a lock which he honestly thinks will posess such and such qualities; and he declares his belief to the world. If others differ from him in opinion concerning those qualities, it is open to them to say so; and the discussion, truthfully conducted, must lead to public advantage: the discussion stimulates curiosity, and curiosity stimulates invention. Nothing but a partial and limited view of the question could lead to the opinion that harm can result: if there be harm, it will be much more than counterbalanced by good.
No, it is a reaction to the mainstream media outright lying. They've been caught so many times it's ridiculous, and here you are parroting the line that it doesn't exist. Glenn Thrush, the former senior staff writer at Politico was exposed by WikiLeaks as he ran an article by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta prior to publishing. What was his punishment? He was hired by The New York Times as a political correspondent.
Recently, four big scoops were run by major news organizations â" written by top reporters and presumably churned through layers of scrupulous editing â" that turned out to be completely wrong: Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and others reported that the special counsel's office had subpoenaed Donald Trump's records from Deutsche Bank. They weren't. ABC reported that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn't. The New York Times ran a story that showed K.T. McFarland had acknowledged collusion. She didn't. Then CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published.
Forget your routine bias, these were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits, and analysts, all of them feeding frenzied expectations about collusion that have now been internalized as indisputable truths by many. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.
If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask, why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes are prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn't there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?
When all the errors are in the bank's favor, you can be forgiven for thinking there's more at work than sloppy arithmetic.
You're simply too stupid. Things have never, ever been so good for the human race, in all of history going back to the Dawn of Man. It's not just great, but it's getting better every day. "It's all over" LOL. You're not just stupid, you're a drama queen too.
Slashdot Mirror
The Democrats gutted welfare at the same time they exploded the prison population, called black people 'super predators', at the same time they did NAFTA. Then they deregulated Wall Street, which crashed the economy within 10 years. That's what Democrats did. Democrats did things that Ronald Reagan could only dream about, in his wet dreams. George HW Bush couldn't pass NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to do it. Bill Clinton gave the cover to the other corporate Democrats to go along with it. That was the beginning of the end for the working class in America.
Then the Democrats wag their finger at people with no money and no power, for not voting for a corporatist warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Why do you think the people in Michigan wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton? Maybe because she put half of them in fuckin' prison? Because she passed NAFTA, and Barack Obama was trying to sell TPP at the top of his lungs, at the same time she was trying to get working people to vote for her? They knew what the fuck was going on! That's why half the country didn't vote. But you're going to wag your finger at the people who actually do vote? Who come out and vote their conscience? You know what voting for the lesser of two evils gets you? Donald Trump!
-- Jimmy Dore
First of all Capitalism and Fascism are completely incompatible. Fascism is totalitarian and only cares about industry in so far that it serves the state - it will therefore never allow free innovation to meet public demand which is the cornerstone of Capitalism. There would be no equivalent of McDonald's, SpaceX, porn sites or surplus of bad airplane novels in Hitler's Reich. This may sound like a good thing but is in fact a extreme restriction of free cultural expression.
When I see Antifa thugs dress all in black beating people up who disagree with them, I'm reminded of the fascist Nazi brown shirts, they seem to have far more in common with Nazism than anyone on the right.ï
These FISA court abuses are 50 times bigger than Watergate. Hillary essentially bought a FISA warrant to spy on her opponent. The FISA court was lied to by the FBI and DOJ in order to secure a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. What would you say if this had happened in a third world country? "Shrug, business as usual for that kind of place." Yeah, exactly. This is why it's 50 times bigger than Watergate.
I love how suddenly - after being solidly anti-law enforcement for decades, up to and including violent riots and the premeditated murder of police officers - the Left is suddenly in love with the FBI (wtf). They defend it fiercely against clear evidence of the kind of abuse they always claimed was going on. How did criminals with badges suddenly become great a pillar of Our Values? Oink, oink, I smell bacon. The Left defending the pigs. We are really through the looking glass here.
The real secret was that American traitor who spilled the biggest secret to the dirty foreigners - to concentrate Russian efforts on the swing states. If only someone in Hillary's campaign had known that, she might have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Live and learn!
That's the sad part about this whole thing: this is the Legislative branch, exercising its oversight of the FISA court which it established. They found abuses; they are now addressing those abuses. That the Executive branch is resisting tooth and nail and telling the Legislative branch that they are not under democratic control, that is the real scandal here. The attitude seems to be, "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and if you try to tell us no, we have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."
And treating people according to state and federal law...you mean firing them for expressing political views? You have a really weird viewpoint of Google as some sort of non-leftist entity.
Yeah, that's the smart thing to do if you have something to hide. Chuck Schumer agrees. Here he is sitting down with a burner phone and meeting with the son of George Soros. Isn't that intent to circumvent FOIA? Either that, or intent to circumvent Records Management by Federal Agencies (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31). Either way, it stinks.
Several of those are racist. Not everyone goes to college. How are you assuming that all the students will graduate and have jobs, and thus require filing tax returns? Everyone has a car...etc. This whole list is like "what's important to upper-middle class white children" and that is problematic.
WTF u joking bro? The villain of the movie is literally named "English socialism" or Ingsoc. The techniques portrayed in the book were developed in solidly left-wing governments that had murdered or imprisoned any right-wingers in their society. And your takeaway was "TEH NAZIS DID IT"? In George Orwell's 1984? Jeez louise, people are dense.
LOL still beating that "you're a nazi" dead horse, eh? Keep it up. You people called Mitt Romney a Nazi. What a joke. LMAO.
Then just have everyone doodle a picture of Mohammed. If you refuse, you don't get on the plane. In fact, we put you on the next plane back to Shitholestan. We don't need those kind of people in our nice country.
"Moving jobs to China" didn't happen in a vacuum. It was a deliberate decision, one that didn't need to be made. It's not some "natural process". It was an idiotic assumption that once China got rich by ruining our working class, that they would suddenly break out in democracy and flowers for everyone. Instead - oops! - it turned into a huge competitor and the China Model of authoritarian government is rocking the foundations of democracy. Even the New York Times publicly admired the China Model, saying it let politicians get things done without opposition.
"Get back to work" and "it's not about your feelings" from a hardcore Leftist. Gosh, funny how things do a complete 180 when it's someone whose points you don't want to listen to.
This is like when the New York Times lied about the Tesla car. "When the facts didn't suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts," Musk wrote. A Times spokeswoman reiterated that its story was "fair and accurate."
90 Russians and their paltry Facebook ad buy decided the election. I highly recommend that they be hired for any project. They are the most amazing marketers ever. They beat Hillary's $1.2 billion juggernaut with just $100k! It was like sinking a battleship with a hand grenade.
When even the New Yorker is ridiculing the idea that there is some great Russia conspiracy, you know it's all over but the crying: https://www.newyorker.com/news...
Facebook VP: "The Majority Of Russian Ad Spend Happened AFTER The Election" https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2...
"many of these ads did not violate our content policies. That means that for most of them, if they had been run by authentic individuals, anywhere, they could have remained on the platform."
Shouldn't you stop foreigners from meddling in US social issues?
The right to speak out on global issues that cross borders is an important principle. Organizations such as UNICEF, Oxfam or religious organizations depend on the ability to communicate â" and advertise â" their views in a wide range of countries. While we may not always agree with the positions of those who would speak on issues here, we believe in their right to do so â" just as we believe in the right of Americans to express opinions on issues in other countries.
- the ads were non-political in nature, and didn't feature or favour a political candidate
- 56% of the ads were run AFTER the 2016 US federal election
- 25% of the ads were never displayed to anyone due to Facebook's algorithms not finding them relevant to trending interests
- only 25% of the ads were geographically-targeted
- Facebook is not sure that the ads were part of an organized campaign
- Facebook is not sure that the accounts the ads were purchased with are associated with each other
- Facebook is not certain that the ads were purchased by Russians
- many of the ads were not purchased using Russia's currency
- huge numbers of actual political ads are bought and run on Facebook from all countries around the world, and that is normal and OK
- the "overwhelming majority" of ad-space purchases from Russia by Russians are normal and not suspicious in any way
So, after a year of investigations and debunked conspiracy / false claim after debunked conspiracy / false claim, the strongest argument for alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US federal election is $100K of non-political or partisan Facebook ads - more than half of which ran after the election, and a quarter of which never ran at all. That's telling.
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."
"[There is] no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election."
-- Rod Rosenstein
Their techniques are amazingly powerful and they are the world's best persuaders. We need to give them jobs, they are head and shoulders better at their jobs than anyone in our society. Right?
When even the New Yorker is ridiculing the idea that there is some great Russia conspiracy, you know it's all over but the crying: https://www.newyorker.com/news...
Wait a minute, weren't you calling Romney "Hitler"? Why yes you were!.
People are in fear of Russians. Absolute nutty paranoia. Let's all get some perspective and tamp down the troll farm panic. It's 90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics shitposting on Facebook. Our reaction to them is all out of proportion to their influence and will harm us more than they ever could. When even the New Yorker is ridiculing the idea that there is some great Russia conspiracy, you know it's all over but the crying.
This was written in 1853 by Charles Tomlinson, and is only an excerpt of the the treatise, but it shows that people recognized that 'security' trough obscurity was not really security at all, way before the digital age. (sorry for the double post, screwed up the formatting and it was a wall of text)
A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties.
Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear -- milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.
...The unscrupulous have the command of much of this kind of knowledge without our aid; and there is moral and commercial justice in placing on their guard those who might possibly suffer therefrom. We employ these stray expressions concerning adulteration, debasement, roguery, and so forth, simply as a mode of illustrating a principle -- the advantage of publicity. In respect to lock-making, there can scarcely be such a thing as dishonesty of intention: the inventor produces a lock which he honestly thinks will posess such and such qualities; and he declares his belief to the world. If others differ from him in opinion concerning those qualities, it is open to them to say so; and the discussion, truthfully conducted, must lead to public advantage: the discussion stimulates curiosity, and curiosity stimulates invention. Nothing but a partial and limited view of the question could lead to the opinion that harm can result: if there be harm, it will be much more than counterbalanced by good.
Actually that is a very efficient way for an attractive woman to get an unwanted task done. Pawn it off on some beta male who secretly longs for her, but who she knows has no chance. She can string him along for a long time while extracting resources from him. As soon as he loses faith and stops contributing, she loses him and finds another. I sure wish people would do things for me just because they find me attractive.
This was written in 1853 by Charles Tomlinson, and is only an excerpt of the the treatise, but it shows that people recognized that 'security' trough obscurity was not really security at all, way before the digital age. A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties. Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear -- milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased. ...The unscrupulous have the command of much of this kind of knowledge without our aid; and there is moral and commercial justice in placing on their guard those who might possibly suffer therefrom. We employ these stray expressions concerning adulteration, debasement, roguery, and so forth, simply as a mode of illustrating a principle -- the advantage of publicity. In respect to lock-making, there can scarcely be such a thing as dishonesty of intention: the inventor produces a lock which he honestly thinks will posess such and such qualities; and he declares his belief to the world. If others differ from him in opinion concerning those qualities, it is open to them to say so; and the discussion, truthfully conducted, must lead to public advantage: the discussion stimulates curiosity, and curiosity stimulates invention. Nothing but a partial and limited view of the question could lead to the opinion that harm can result: if there be harm, it will be much more than counterbalanced by good.
No, it is a reaction to the mainstream media outright lying. They've been caught so many times it's ridiculous, and here you are parroting the line that it doesn't exist. Glenn Thrush, the former senior staff writer at Politico was exposed by WikiLeaks as he ran an article by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta prior to publishing. What was his punishment? He was hired by The New York Times as a political correspondent.
Calling fake news fake news is fake news, according to the fake news. Journalists spread fake news all the time, whenever it satisfies their emotional needs and validates their pre-existing political biases. It's very menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are abusing their positions constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public's mind. Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False.
You're simply too stupid. Things have never, ever been so good for the human race, in all of history going back to the Dawn of Man. It's not just great, but it's getting better every day. "It's all over" LOL. You're not just stupid, you're a drama queen too.
I just knew this whole thing could be blamed on America somehow. Thanks, internet commenter!
It's to prevent toxic bullshit like this from spreading through society and causing damage. This is Vietnam, remember. They have no tradition of the extreme version of free speech in the First Amendment. In fact, to most of the world it looks weird and wrong. Vietnam doesn't have a Nazi problem, for example.