You join the Army, go to Iraq, get your ass shot off.
Now you're an "army of one" - one dead moron. The rest of the Army damn sure doesn't care about you any more and they damn sure don't want to be you.
Somebody sent me an email yesterday about a news report that an Iraqi sniper precision killed a US soldier with one bullet in the head from some distance.
Upon arriving at the sniper's previous location, the US troops found a note saying" "Don't bunch up. Spread out. You'll all get your chance!"
They didn't like it. Their reaction was, according to the news report, "hysterical".
That's because people wearing mohawks are not actually doing it because they BELIEVE in mohawks.
They're doing it to try to shock people.
And the more you try to shock people without actually BELIEVING in your own game, the less respect you get (unless of course you're armed and physically dangerous.)
This is where the punk movement went wrong. If they had dressed like young Republicans, and STILL shouted "Fuck the Queen!", they would have been taken more seriously. And probably been arrested and sent to jail and executed.
Primate sociology is very humorous to a Transhuman - when we're not irritated or puking because of it.
Buenaventua Durrutti conducted bank robberies in Mexico and South America before the Spanish Civil War in order to finance anarchist activities in Spain.
In fact, the first time a "getaway car" was used in a bank robbery (and the first "carjacking" - which is how they got the car) was conducted by the Bonnot Gang in France around the turn of the last century.
Yes, propaganda by the deed has obviously not been successful in removing the state. This is because, as you correctly surmise, individual acts are not sufficient when the vast bulk of the world's population is locked into a mindset that the state is some "natural force" like air and water.
My intention was to go rather farther than simply robbing a bank. The point of the bank robbery was to get money to finance my activities. Said activities would be rather more far-reaching than even the sort of thing bin Laden has been up to.
I still think if somebody had some serious resources - and the imagination and training to use them properly - that it would be possible to so seriously disrupt the state and conventional society that significant changes might be made.
However, I now believe that only with the advent of nanotechnology and its proper application can this be possible (or possibly be rendered irrelevant by the appropriate application of nanotechnology to one's own human condition.)
By the way, the original definition of terrorism as coined by the "People's Will" party in Russia in the late 1800's was to cause fear in the STATE and the desire to rebel in the PUBLIC - not the other way around. Once the state got hold of the idea of terrorism, this definition was reversed. Today almost all terrorism is sponsored by, assisted by and controlled by one state or another - from bin Laden and the Taliban to, well, George Bush and 9/11.
Also, most terrorism today is directed against civilians, not the state actors involved. I intended to change that by targeting the people directly involved in controlling society. Precision targeting would eliminate most civilian casualties.
If you're fighting what you consider a "foreign enemy" (like bin Laden apparently does), you might target civilians such as in 9/11. It is much more effective to hit only the people who are actually causing you your problems - ie, the policy makers and their oligarch supporters in the given society. You'll notice that bin Laden and Al Qaeda have NEVER attempted to assassinate any of the real people responsible for US foreign policy. This is a serious strategic error on bin Laden's part. While large-scale civilian casualties get you noticed, all they do is piss your target population off and unite them against you. That's not what you want - you want them divided and set against their own leaders.
This was the "Marighella principle" enunciated by Carlos Marighella in South America back in the '50's or '60's. It never worked in South America because, again, when the state imposed its oppression in order to stop terrorism, the population just knuckled under - just as it is doing in the US today. We had 9/11 (probably hosted by the Mossad and the CIA), then we got the Patriot Act, now we'll get an attack on Iran this June, and literally everybody except a few dissidents are just bending over and accepting it all.
Ideally, you want to do the following: 1) Kill those who make and support state policy. 2) Induce change-producing fear in the general population which, however, MUST be combined with the realization that the state CANNOT protect them from your terrorism.
Which means you have to survive the attempts of the state to suppress you and appear invulnerable to those attempts, so the population must start to think about WHY you are doing what you are doing and WHY you are successful.
Hard to do. Nobody has done it correctly yet. Doesn't mean it can't be done. I'd like to see it done, but I don't think it will happen.
"Try engaging your brain for once before you wish violence upon others, especially out loud. Some of those people who spend every day protecting you might take offense."
"And how many do you hear about actually causing these kinds of problems? The majority of cops are good"
How many? How about the New York Commission in the 1970's who determined that EVERY SINGLE COP IN NEW YORK was on the take from organized crime? Not a few - EVERY SINGLE COP!
How many beatings do you need filmed in Los Angeles before you get a clue?
You still have some fantasy that cops look and act like the clean-cut, polite kids in "Adam 12".
Bullshit.
I'm not saying every single cop in the US is a torturer or a murderer. Sure, there are plenty of cops who just try to do their job (statist shit that it is, however).
But if you've never read any of the books about the inside of the law enforcement industry, or listened to cops talk, or been arrested, you just don't have a clue how many cops view civilians as "them vrs us" and how many cops view themselves as above the law.
And this has been true for at least the last century or beyond in this country, and for previous centuries in other countries.
Everybody in virtually every country in the world knows cops are to be feared and not trusted - except in the brainwashed US (and possibly the UK where the "cute Bobby" with his whistle still reigns).
"Infoshop is an anarchist site, anarchism is not generally considered to be a pacifist ideology."
Actually that is completely wrong (except for the part about "generally considered" - most people are "generally ignorant" about the various branches of anarchist philosophy. Being generally ignorant is no excuse for oppression.)
In fact, there are two main branches of anarchism - one is quite pacifistic (except perhaps on a personal level where self-defense is accepted), the other believes in "direct action" - which may include violent overthrow of the government.
And as to whether various individuals were "white" or not is irrelevant to the point. Unless the FBI had specific evidence relating to the possible commission of a specific criminal act which either was being plotted (and the plotting was itself a specific criminal act) or had been actually committed, then they had no business seizing logs. "Fishing expeditions" are in no way legitimate.
"An administration that can't be bothered to finish the job on Bin Laden evan after the 9/11 bombing is not going to be bothered with the anarchists."
Wrong again. Bin Laden was left because he was NEVER considered the primary factor in any of this. Bush NEEDS bin Laden to be a boogeyman to justify his goals of suppressing civil rights and trashing the economy for his oligarch friends.
In this respect, any criticism from any corner is worthy of being suppressed - as was demonstrated by the outing of a CIA agent by Rove or his agents, and the constant reiteration by the rightwing talkshow punks that anybody who criticzes Bush is a "traitor".
The FBI has done this sort of thing for DECADES against various groups - and it was demonstrated in Federal Court that they did a lot worse to the American Indian Movement for many years.
So, yes, the FBI most definitely was more likely on a "suppression" mission than an legitimate "investigation".
Nobody claims that stupid people only hurt themselves.
Nobody has ever claimed that in the anarchist or lib movement that I am aware of.
That is a straw man set up by people who wish to control other people's lives for their own agenda.
And it does not invalidate the point that everyone is STILL individually responsible for their own reactions to any event.
And in simple practical terms, most people who get trampled in a mob scene get that way because they were IN the mob scene - not sitting quietly determining their best course of action.
HE is not responsible for what is posted on his Web site by other idiots.
OTOH, HE is not responsible if the FBI forces him to reveal what is posted on his Web site.
Any anarchist who thinks BLIND resistance - on his part or anyone else's - is the only course of action is an idiot. When the cops have a gun to your head (figuratively or otherwise) you do what you have to do to survive. If you do, do what you can against them later. Getting yourself arrested or killed for no effective result is just stupid.
We can complain that he should not have kept logs. Well, as has been pointed out by numerous others, if he hadn't that doesn't necessarily mean he or his systems would be in the clear. Therefore, it's irrelevant that he kept logs.
Anybody posting legally liable material on his board from a traceable IP address is an idiot, anyway. So who cares about logs? He might as well keep them.
Most so-called "anarchists" in this country are "armchair anarchists" anyway. I did eight years on a nine year sentence for armed bank robbery because I finally decided to give up armchair anarchism. Well, it didn't work out - it could have, to some degree, had I started with better resources, but it didn't. This does not validate or invalidate my approach, nor does it validate armchair anarchism.
But any armchair anarchist critizing this guy for having to turn over Web logs is just that.
He did what he had to do, he's not happy about it, and he's revealing as much as he can about it. That's fine by me.
The real assholes are those who tried to incriminate this guy (if that's what they were trying to do) and the FBI itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if the two are one and the same - posting criminal material on a dissident site and then busting the site for "evidence" is an obvious Fed trick which has no doubt been used before and will be used again. Federal courts have determined that the FBI did worse against the American Indian Movement for years, so this would be no surprise.
As for "free speech", anybody remember the posters the FBI spread around Harlem back in the sixties trying to rile blacks up against "Jews" like Abbie Hoffman the FBI didn't like?
"Long gone are the days of "propaganda by the deed", when foolish anarchists used violence or the threat of violence to achieve their ends."
Well, no...
I did eight years on a nine year sentence for armed bank robbery for trying just that. That was in 1993 - if you want to consider that "long gone", feel free.
However, since I didn't succeed, I might go along with the "foolish" part. Still, if I'd had a bit more resources before I started, I might still be out there doing it today. Or dead, one of the two. (But if the latter, there'd be a lot of other dead assholes along with me. As my defense attorney told me, "We're lucky we stopped you before it got any further.")
Well, since the FBI just botched a multi-hundred-million dollar IT project to upgrade their systems from 486-level, I'd say that department is not too worry...
The CIA and NSA are another matter - although some years back, a group of IT and commo industry people were given clearances and shown through the NSA systems. Their conclusion at the end was "You'll be deaf and blind in five years"...that's how obsolete the NSA's stuff was. Don't know if there's been upgrades since - I assume so.
"When they come to arrest you, you won't get shot unless you do something stupid, like threaten them with a weapon."
Are you naive...
Plenty of people have been shot because some asshole cop THOUGHT they MIGHT have a weapon - while they were wiping their nose or reaching for their ID...
There was a case some years back reported in the (IIRC) Cincinnati Inquirer when cops invaded a home which was fingered (wrongly) by some paid snitch as a drug stash. The cops thought the house was empty because there was no furniture - it turns out the owner had a messy divorce, the wife got it all. The cops bust in, mistake some innocent motion for a threat, shoot the guy. They ransack the house for half an hour while he lies bleeding on the floor, no medical assistance called.
Now get THIS PART: Unaware that the victim is conscious, these cops DEBATE FINISHING HIM OFF SO THEY CAN MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A GOOD DRUG BUST!! They only decide NOT to MURDER him because some of the cops complain that with FIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS in on the raid, somebody might spill the beans on a CIVILIAN MURDER! So they let him live - not knowing he just heard all this.
Nice. Welcome to America...
You have no fucking clue how cops work.
Ask the guy in New York who had a broomstick run up his ass. Asd the kids at Waco who were burned to death so the cops could get revenge for two cops in LA convicted the same day of beating Rodney King...
Cops are pigs. Cops deserve to get shot straight in the head. All cops - local, state, Federal, international. Interplanetary, for all I care.
The difference between freedom and coercion is that freedom implies freedom from coercion.
Therefore equating freedom with punching someone is an oxymoron.
Which makes you a moron.
Not to mention the fact that all the "not free" matters you mention are entirely matters of state coercion (with the exception of fraud - slander should not be illegal since it's up to the listener to determine the truth of any utterance).
If I hear this stupid "fire in a theater" shit one more time...
You may not be able to yell fire in a theater, but you SHOULD be able to.
Anybody stupid enough to run off and get trampled deserves to die. Nature's way of eliminating the stupid.
If I hear "fire!", I look around for smoke and flame. If I don't see it, I go nowhere (and I say that as someone who had smoke and flame in an apartment building some years ago) until I know what is happening and where safety lies.
If you primates would get some balls, you might not have to panic every time somebody says something.
"if and when the overall method of software distribution on windows encourages users to search software from arbitrary web sites, some of which CAN AND WILL be malicious, there's clearly some kind of problem in it."
Encouraging users to search software from arbitrary Web sites is exactly how it is done now - and the ONLY users who are negatively affected are those who: 1) download from disreputable commercial sites; 2)don't run anti-malware programs - which should be built into the OS by now, but the industry is obviously too stupid - and 3) are too stupid to read the EULAS occasionally presented by spyware utilities.
The ONLY technological way to solve this problem is to embed software in the OS that does not allow ANY communication with the Net - in or out - unless the OS ITSELF explains IN DETAIL exactly WHICH program is trying to communicate and WHY, so that the user can make an INFORMED choice on allowing communication. In fact, the OS should not allow any program other than itself to run until the exact same situation occurs. "Trusted computing" is an excellent idea - provided, of course, that it is under the control of the user, instead of under the control of Gates and the RIAA.
The problem at the base is STUPID OS design.
However, MY point still stands - anybody who has a clue will NOT be affected by software brought down from the Web - and the clueless will continue to be affected no matter whether they get software from a distro or not.
You think EVERY DISTRO can be trusted NOT to install spyware or trojans? How many distros are there? Do YOU know who is behind each and every one? Especially when, as you say, Linux reaches some critical mass? If you think spyware authors and software and Web site authors will collaborate to install malware on users when Linux is bigger, how do you know the DISTROS won't? Do you trust SUN? I didn't think so.
Besides, I have NEVER said that the distros CANNOT function as useful distributors. The problem with people bringing up this horseshit about packages is that they are treating the whole thing as an "either-or" situation - which there is absolutely NO evidence that will ever occur. Some software authors will continue to distribute their software through distro repositories, some will use packages, some will use both. There is NO confict between the two, and to suggest otherwise is hypothetical nonsense. When it happens, you can complain. Until then, it's just resistance to a new idea. Period.
Back in the '60's, most TV shows were about private eyes, spies, Westerns and the like.
The assholes started complaining about the violence - just like now. The government started making noises about regulation, so the TV industry started making tons of violent cop shows where the cops regularly violate people's civil rights.
The state of course loves to demonstrate their power over the citizenry.
So - end of complaints about violence - until now, of course, when the real complaint is the idea that a teenager might want to screw a hooker.
Certainly he wouldn't want to screw Hillary...
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Go ahead and regulate the games. That will start a huge underground game market for even more extreme games, just like in Japan where "otaku" distribute violent porn games.
However, nothing they say there invalidates my point: that people can continue to use repositories for what they do reasonably well - provide a single point of access.
In fact, most Windows freeware that I use comes down either from the developer site (and I prefer that because I can assess how committed the developer is to his project, and whether or not there is a new version not yet available on the freeware site) or from a download site (which is valuable when the developer Web site is down temporarily or permanently) where I can also assess competing packages for the same function.
There is simply no reason to believe that the same won't occur with packages. It's purely hypothetical that repositories will go away if packages become common. It will come down to a matter of free choice by users and developers - as it should be.
I can't remember if he said anything about that, but I suspect there was a reason not to. He's fully aware of all the wireless standards -he's teaching the course in them at City College!
For the clueless, let me explain something to you.
Bill Gates cares about one thing and one thing ONLY: money. And he is FAR too greedy to see any way he can make the same money he is making now from open source. As I've said before, there is NO WAY Bill Gates will ever change his stance on this - EVEN if somebody could show him how to make MORE money from OSS. He's too big an asshole.
ANY discussion of Microsoft doing open source is so ridiculous as to belong on the funny pages.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you are.
You join the Army, go to Iraq, get your ass shot off.
Now you're an "army of one" - one dead moron. The rest of the Army damn sure doesn't care about you any more and they damn sure don't want to be you.
Somebody sent me an email yesterday about a news report that an Iraqi sniper precision killed a US soldier with one bullet in the head from some distance.
Upon arriving at the sniper's previous location, the US troops found a note saying" "Don't bunch up. Spread out. You'll all get your chance!"
They didn't like it. Their reaction was, according to the news report, "hysterical".
That's because people wearing mohawks are not actually doing it because they BELIEVE in mohawks.
They're doing it to try to shock people.
And the more you try to shock people without actually BELIEVING in your own game, the less respect you get (unless of course you're armed and physically dangerous.)
This is where the punk movement went wrong. If they had dressed like young Republicans, and STILL shouted "Fuck the Queen!", they would have been taken more seriously. And probably been arrested and sent to jail and executed.
Primate sociology is very humorous to a Transhuman - when we're not irritated or puking because of it.
you're not respected.
Guess that lets out everybody on
Buenaventua Durrutti conducted bank robberies in Mexico and South America before the Spanish Civil War in order to finance anarchist activities in Spain.
In fact, the first time a "getaway car" was used in a bank robbery (and the first "carjacking" - which is how they got the car) was conducted by the Bonnot Gang in France around the turn of the last century.
Yes, propaganda by the deed has obviously not been successful in removing the state. This is because, as you correctly surmise, individual acts are not sufficient when the vast bulk of the world's population is locked into a mindset that the state is some "natural force" like air and water.
My intention was to go rather farther than simply robbing a bank. The point of the bank robbery was to get money to finance my activities. Said activities would be rather more far-reaching than even the sort of thing bin Laden has been up to.
I still think if somebody had some serious resources - and the imagination and training to use them properly - that it would be possible to so seriously disrupt the state and conventional society that significant changes might be made.
However, I now believe that only with the advent of nanotechnology and its proper application can this be possible (or possibly be rendered irrelevant by the appropriate application of nanotechnology to one's own human condition.)
By the way, the original definition of terrorism as coined by the "People's Will" party in Russia in the late 1800's was to cause fear in the STATE and the desire to rebel in the PUBLIC - not the other way around. Once the state got hold of the idea of terrorism, this definition was reversed. Today almost all terrorism is sponsored by, assisted by and controlled by one state or another - from bin Laden and the Taliban to, well, George Bush and 9/11.
Also, most terrorism today is directed against civilians, not the state actors involved. I intended to change that by targeting the people directly involved in controlling society. Precision targeting would eliminate most civilian casualties.
If you're fighting what you consider a "foreign enemy" (like bin Laden apparently does), you might target civilians such as in 9/11. It is much more effective to hit only the people who are actually causing you your problems - ie, the policy makers and their oligarch supporters in the given society. You'll notice that bin Laden and Al Qaeda have NEVER attempted to assassinate any of the real people responsible for US foreign policy. This is a serious strategic error on bin Laden's part. While large-scale civilian casualties get you noticed, all they do is piss your target population off and unite them against you. That's not what you want - you want them divided and set against their own leaders.
This was the "Marighella principle" enunciated by Carlos Marighella in South America back in the '50's or '60's. It never worked in South America because, again, when the state imposed its oppression in order to stop terrorism, the population just knuckled under - just as it is doing in the US today. We had 9/11 (probably hosted by the Mossad and the CIA), then we got the Patriot Act, now we'll get an attack on Iran this June, and literally everybody except a few dissidents are just bending over and accepting it all.
Ideally, you want to do the following:
1) Kill those who make and support state policy.
2) Induce change-producing fear in the general population which, however, MUST be combined with the realization that the state CANNOT protect them from your terrorism.
Which means you have to survive the attempts of the state to suppress you and appear invulnerable to those attempts, so the population must start to think about WHY you are doing what you are doing and WHY you are successful.
Hard to do. Nobody has done it correctly yet. Doesn't mean it can't be done. I'd like to see it done, but I don't think it will happen.
So that's why I've changed course.
What did I just say?
Freedom is freedom from coercion - not freedom from reality.
I am not some leftist who thinks everything should be free-as-in-beer (at someone else's cost), either.
"Try engaging your brain for once before you wish violence upon others, especially out loud. Some of those people who spend every day protecting you might take offense."
What's wrong with this picture?
Try engaging your brain, moron.
"And how many do you hear about actually causing these kinds of problems? The majority of cops are good"
How many? How about the New York Commission in the 1970's who determined that EVERY SINGLE COP IN NEW YORK was on the take from organized crime? Not a few - EVERY SINGLE COP!
How many beatings do you need filmed in Los Angeles before you get a clue?
You still have some fantasy that cops look and act like the clean-cut, polite kids in "Adam 12".
Bullshit.
I'm not saying every single cop in the US is a torturer or a murderer. Sure, there are plenty of cops who just try to do their job (statist shit that it is, however).
But if you've never read any of the books about the inside of the law enforcement industry, or listened to cops talk, or been arrested, you just don't have a clue how many cops view civilians as "them vrs us" and how many cops view themselves as above the law.
And this has been true for at least the last century or beyond in this country, and for previous centuries in other countries.
Everybody in virtually every country in the world knows cops are to be feared and not trusted - except in the brainwashed US (and possibly the UK where the "cute Bobby" with his whistle still reigns).
Get a clue.
"Infoshop is an anarchist site, anarchism is not generally considered to be a pacifist ideology."
Actually that is completely wrong (except for the part about "generally considered" - most people are "generally ignorant" about the various branches of anarchist philosophy. Being generally ignorant is no excuse for oppression.)
In fact, there are two main branches of anarchism - one is quite pacifistic (except perhaps on a personal level where self-defense is accepted), the other believes in "direct action" - which may include violent overthrow of the government.
And as to whether various individuals were "white" or not is irrelevant to the point. Unless the FBI had specific evidence relating to the possible commission of a specific criminal act which either was being plotted (and the plotting was itself a specific criminal act) or had been actually committed, then they had no business seizing logs. "Fishing expeditions" are in no way legitimate.
"An administration that can't be bothered to finish the job on Bin Laden evan after the 9/11 bombing is not going to be bothered with the anarchists."
Wrong again. Bin Laden was left because he was NEVER considered the primary factor in any of this. Bush NEEDS bin Laden to be a boogeyman to justify his goals of suppressing civil rights and trashing the economy for his oligarch friends.
In this respect, any criticism from any corner is worthy of being suppressed - as was demonstrated by the outing of a CIA agent by Rove or his agents, and the constant reiteration by the rightwing talkshow punks that anybody who criticzes Bush is a "traitor".
The FBI has done this sort of thing for DECADES against various groups - and it was demonstrated in Federal Court that they did a lot worse to the American Indian Movement for many years.
So, yes, the FBI most definitely was more likely on a "suppression" mission than an legitimate "investigation".
Nobody claims that stupid people only hurt themselves.
Nobody has ever claimed that in the anarchist or lib movement that I am aware of.
That is a straw man set up by people who wish to control other people's lives for their own agenda.
And it does not invalidate the point that everyone is STILL individually responsible for their own reactions to any event.
And in simple practical terms, most people who get trampled in a mob scene get that way because they were IN the mob scene - not sitting quietly determining their best course of action.
Your statement is bullshit.
provided it was only used to quietly trigger my guard robot to fry people with a plasma cannon...
Fucking Lite-on dual-format DVD burner won't read half the fucking DVDs I feed it - acts like they're either full or aren't even in the drive.
And these are Fujifilm Taiyo Yuden DVDs, too - top of the line in quality.
This piece of shit is OUT OF HERE as soon as I can afford to buy a new drive.
You wouldn't believe the cursing I've done today.
Threw a half dozen DVDs against the wall.
Christ, I hate the fucking IT industry!
Bunch of goddamn monkey-ass morons who make shit!
Assholes!
Goddamn incompetents!
Oh, wait...
I'm in the IT industry...
Never mind.
Oh, hell, it's all true...
Fucking, moronic, stupid, primate...
"Nothing works and nobody cares." - Woody Allen, 20th Century's greatest philosopher, in summing up the human condition in five words.
HE is not responsible for what is posted on his Web site by other idiots.
OTOH, HE is not responsible if the FBI forces him to reveal what is posted on his Web site.
Any anarchist who thinks BLIND resistance - on his part or anyone else's - is the only course of action is an idiot. When the cops have a gun to your head (figuratively or otherwise) you do what you have to do to survive. If you do, do what you can against them later. Getting yourself arrested or killed for no effective result is just stupid.
We can complain that he should not have kept logs. Well, as has been pointed out by numerous others, if he hadn't that doesn't necessarily mean he or his systems would be in the clear. Therefore, it's irrelevant that he kept logs.
Anybody posting legally liable material on his board from a traceable IP address is an idiot, anyway. So who cares about logs? He might as well keep them.
Most so-called "anarchists" in this country are "armchair anarchists" anyway. I did eight years on a nine year sentence for armed bank robbery because I finally decided to give up armchair anarchism. Well, it didn't work out - it could have, to some degree, had I started with better resources, but it didn't. This does not validate or invalidate my approach, nor does it validate armchair anarchism.
But any armchair anarchist critizing this guy for having to turn over Web logs is just that.
He did what he had to do, he's not happy about it, and he's revealing as much as he can about it. That's fine by me.
The real assholes are those who tried to incriminate this guy (if that's what they were trying to do) and the FBI itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if the two are one and the same - posting criminal material on a dissident site and then busting the site for "evidence" is an obvious Fed trick which has no doubt been used before and will be used again. Federal courts have determined that the FBI did worse against the American Indian Movement for years, so this would be no surprise.
As for "free speech", anybody remember the posters the FBI spread around Harlem back in the sixties trying to rile blacks up against "Jews" like Abbie Hoffman the FBI didn't like?
Hey, FBI! Me Transhumanist. You Fed.
Fuck you.
"Long gone are the days of "propaganda by the deed", when foolish anarchists used violence or the threat of violence to achieve their ends."
Well, no...
I did eight years on a nine year sentence for armed bank robbery for trying just that. That was in 1993 - if you want to consider that "long gone", feel free.
However, since I didn't succeed, I might go along with the "foolish" part. Still, if I'd had a bit more resources before I started, I might still be out there doing it today. Or dead, one of the two. (But if the latter, there'd be a lot of other dead assholes along with me. As my defense attorney told me, "We're lucky we stopped you before it got any further.")
Now I wait for the nanotech to do the job right.
SMASH THE STATE!
Well, since the FBI just botched a multi-hundred-million dollar IT project to upgrade their systems from 486-level, I'd say that department is not too worry...
The CIA and NSA are another matter - although some years back, a group of IT and commo industry people were given clearances and shown through the NSA systems. Their conclusion at the end was "You'll be deaf and blind in five years"...that's how obsolete the NSA's stuff was. Don't know if there's been upgrades since - I assume so.
"When they come to arrest you, you won't get shot unless you do something stupid, like threaten them with a weapon."
Are you naive...
Plenty of people have been shot because some asshole cop THOUGHT they MIGHT have a weapon - while they were wiping their nose or reaching for their ID...
There was a case some years back reported in the (IIRC) Cincinnati Inquirer when cops invaded a home which was fingered (wrongly) by some paid snitch as a drug stash. The cops thought the house was empty because there was no furniture - it turns out the owner had a messy divorce, the wife got it all. The cops bust in, mistake some innocent motion for a threat, shoot the guy. They ransack the house for half an hour while he lies bleeding on the floor, no medical assistance called.
Now get THIS PART: Unaware that the victim is conscious, these cops DEBATE FINISHING HIM OFF SO THEY CAN MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A GOOD DRUG BUST!! They only decide NOT to MURDER him because some of the cops complain that with FIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS in on the raid, somebody might spill the beans on a CIVILIAN MURDER! So they let him live - not knowing he just heard all this.
Nice. Welcome to America...
You have no fucking clue how cops work.
Ask the guy in New York who had a broomstick run up his ass. Asd the kids at Waco who were burned to death so the cops could get revenge for two cops in LA convicted the same day of beating Rodney King...
Cops are pigs. Cops deserve to get shot straight in the head. All cops - local, state, Federal, international. Interplanetary, for all I care.
In case you haven't noticed, you're at least THREE years too late...
See you in Guantanamo...
You're a moron.
The difference between freedom and coercion is that freedom implies freedom from coercion.
Therefore equating freedom with punching someone is an oxymoron.
Which makes you a moron.
Not to mention the fact that all the "not free" matters you mention are entirely matters of state coercion (with the exception of fraud - slander should not be illegal since it's up to the listener to determine the truth of any utterance).
If I hear this stupid "fire in a theater" shit one more time...
You may not be able to yell fire in a theater, but you SHOULD be able to.
Anybody stupid enough to run off and get trampled deserves to die. Nature's way of eliminating the stupid.
If I hear "fire!", I look around for smoke and flame. If I don't see it, I go nowhere (and I say that as someone who had smoke and flame in an apartment building some years ago) until I know what is happening and where safety lies.
If you primates would get some balls, you might not have to panic every time somebody says something.
Gutless chimpanzees.
"if and when the overall method of software distribution on windows encourages users to search software from arbitrary web sites, some of which CAN AND WILL be malicious, there's clearly some kind of problem in it."
Encouraging users to search software from arbitrary Web sites is exactly how it is done now - and the ONLY users who are negatively affected are those who: 1) download from disreputable commercial sites; 2)don't run anti-malware programs - which should be built into the OS by now, but the industry is obviously too stupid - and 3) are too stupid to read the EULAS occasionally presented by spyware utilities.
The ONLY technological way to solve this problem is to embed software in the OS that does not allow ANY communication with the Net - in or out - unless the OS ITSELF explains IN DETAIL exactly WHICH program is trying to communicate and WHY, so that the user can make an INFORMED choice on allowing communication. In fact, the OS should not allow any program other than itself to run until the exact same situation occurs. "Trusted computing" is an excellent idea - provided, of course, that it is under the control of the user, instead of under the control of Gates and the RIAA.
The problem at the base is STUPID OS design.
However, MY point still stands - anybody who has a clue will NOT be affected by software brought down from the Web - and the clueless will continue to be affected no matter whether they get software from a distro or not.
You think EVERY DISTRO can be trusted NOT to install spyware or trojans? How many distros are there? Do YOU know who is behind each and every one? Especially when, as you say, Linux reaches some critical mass? If you think spyware authors and software and Web site authors will collaborate to install malware on users when Linux is bigger, how do you know the DISTROS won't? Do you trust SUN? I didn't think so.
Besides, I have NEVER said that the distros CANNOT function as useful distributors. The problem with people bringing up this horseshit about packages is that they are treating the whole thing as an "either-or" situation - which there is absolutely NO evidence that will ever occur. Some software authors will continue to distribute their software through distro repositories, some will use packages, some will use both. There is NO confict between the two, and to suggest otherwise is hypothetical nonsense. When it happens, you can complain. Until then, it's just resistance to a new idea. Period.
Back in the '60's, most TV shows were about private eyes, spies, Westerns and the like.
The assholes started complaining about the violence - just like now. The government started making noises about regulation, so the TV industry started making tons of violent cop shows where the cops regularly violate people's civil rights.
The state of course loves to demonstrate their power over the citizenry.
So - end of complaints about violence - until now, of course, when the real complaint is the idea that a teenager might want to screw a hooker.
Certainly he wouldn't want to screw Hillary...
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Go ahead and regulate the games. That will start a huge underground game market for even more extreme games, just like in Japan where "otaku" distribute violent porn games.
Gee, I wonder if we can blame US troops murdering Iraqis in cold blood on their "U.S. Army" training game?
I might go along with the hysteria if we could.
And the points made are very valid.
However, nothing they say there invalidates my point: that people can continue to use repositories for what they do reasonably well - provide a single point of access.
In fact, most Windows freeware that I use comes down either from the developer site (and I prefer that because I can assess how committed the developer is to his project, and whether or not there is a new version not yet available on the freeware site) or from a download site (which is valuable when the developer Web site is down temporarily or permanently) where I can also assess competing packages for the same function.
There is simply no reason to believe that the same won't occur with packages. It's purely hypothetical that repositories will go away if packages become common. It will come down to a matter of free choice by users and developers - as it should be.
I can't remember if he said anything about that, but I suspect there was a reason not to. He's fully aware of all the wireless standards -he's teaching the course in them at City College!
What's wrong with this picture?
For the clueless, let me explain something to you.
Bill Gates cares about one thing and one thing ONLY: money. And he is FAR too greedy to see any way he can make the same money he is making now from open source. As I've said before, there is NO WAY Bill Gates will ever change his stance on this - EVEN if somebody could show him how to make MORE money from OSS. He's too big an asshole.
ANY discussion of Microsoft doing open source is so ridiculous as to belong on the funny pages.
Period.
End of story.
'Nuff said.
OH MY GOD!!!
(Duh...)
Christ, why is this even a story? If you don't know by now that telling lies is what government (ANY government) DOES, you're fucking hopeless...
Get a clue, morons.