..and you seem to be defending a world where everyone should shed their protective layers and bond in some kind of emotional orgy.. That's the trend in culture nowadays and it's bad for us in the long run. it's what breeds this kind of extreme behavior in the first place, from suicide, to columbine. People have become vats of nitroglycerine, ready to go off at the smallest jab. People NEED to handle this better.. and, no, talking about your feelings and 'expressing your feminine side' doesn't work very well for guys, but, of course, everything is judged by feminine ideals nowadays...
people are weak. they should strive to be stronger than that and the culture should support this.. they don't know how to cope because we make sure we beat the spine out of 'em by the time they enter 6th grade, under the guise of 'preventing violence,' and promoting 'tolerance.' All it really does is is breed passive aggressive behavior, in both bullies and the bullied. this has a major role in both ravi's and clementi's behavior.
if you want privacy, don't have sex in a shared dorm room. I do'nt know what else to say.. This is just pragmatic, tactical logic. seriously, if there's a camera or a computer in the room, make sure it's off.
it's one thing to be seen by pepole.. it's another to be seen by a machine that makes a record of the event and uploads this fact, along with badly generated heuristics, to other systems belonging to people who don't give a shit what happens to you as a result of their use of said fact.
well good, then darwin in action.. the stupid are taken out of the equation.. you want to claim that americans are dumb and fat? lets filter that out of the gene pool. as an american, I don't have a problem with that.
of course it matters when the majority accepts a new set of expectations as normal/expected... even if this guy chose never to go to a bar, this kind of carding will crop up in other places as the majority gets used to it.. eventually it will affect him.
it's not privacy by itself so much as anonymity working hand in hand with it.. it's one thing to be seen by humans at a club. it's another to be seen at a club by a network of cameras that upload your picture along with some (probably incorrect) heuristically generated stats to the internet (or worse, some marketing company's system for further analysis). sites like facebook took what was an innocuous event (friends taking pics of each other at a club) and turned it into an orwellian nightmare, not just because they make a publically accessible record of who was at the event, but because they use their own heuristics for auto-face recog. this shit DOES get abused.
I'm on board with the one that checks for current insurance. Install that fucker on every cop car.
why? it doesn't increase safety. If you want to protect yourself from litigiousness, do your part to minimize liability for traffic accidents. It's bad enough that insurance is marketed nowadays like it actually makes you safer on the road. it doesn't. it just makes insurance companies rich.
maybe if we didn't require insurance, and we made a lot of noise about it, people would pay more attention on the road. THAT would do a lot more for safety than enforcing draconian irrelevancies.
OF course, it needs to come with the protection from using that information for anything else, but driving is not a fucking right, and when risking my life and livelyhood with a 4000lb weapon, society has decided that you must have insurance.
oh.. well if SOCIETY says so, it must be right.. my bad. A society made up of majorities who can't be bothered to learn to drive well in the first place. yeah fuck you. I want to take away your insurance and MAKE you drive 'naked' on the road.. maybe then you'll get the fuck off your cellphones, leave the sex for the bedroom, and keep away from drugs while on the road. Then, if you hit someone, you'll be really fucked instead of making the rest of us pay for your ineptitude.
Interesting since the tea party I'm thinking about came about long before 2008. It's possible it was subverted, and if so, that's too bad, but the stated principles seem like the right way to go. Having a government that respects budgets and cannot just arbitrarily borrow to make up shortfalls is a good thing for ex.
do they work? from what I've read, western european 'soft' socialist countries are suffering from debt, crumbling infrastructure, and social problems from ultra liberal (as in lax) immigration policies. I don't want this for the USA. I think the USA and Europe could both learn a thing or two from each others' problems as well as from obvious 'you're doing it wrong' countries like N. Korea and the middle east.
the problem is bigger than just one party, and voting lesser of two evils will NOT solve it. honestly, washington is so fucked up right now, I want it to have as little involvement as possible with my own life. I guess that means I vote libertarian.. it's that or not vote at all.
we need a proper left wing party to balance out the crazy extreme of right wing paranoia, xenophobia, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, etc that has become ingrained in our right wing and libertarian dominated politics.
libertarian dominated? seriously?
as opposed to a proper right wing party to balance out the crazy extreme of left wing paranoid, runaway, overlegislation of everything, punitive overtaxation of the middle class, phobia of free speech critical of lobbyist values, and phobia of individual self defense, from public school policies that punish victims along with the bullies, to ever more byzantine gun ownership laws designed to make it nearly impossible to actually own one. I think these are examples of a far reaching phobia of a citzenry that is self-empowered in ANY context because an empowered citizenry doesn't need government support quite so much, and without that, there's little justification for expansion.
left wing use of terms like 'xenophobe' and 'homophobe' are false dilemmas designed to silence any criticism of non white/women/gay people (or any other subculture the democrats choose to drumbeat for), whether those attributes have contextual relevance to the accusation or not. The fact these are marginalized at times does not justify their desire to get 'hate-speech' and other one-way anti-discrimination law passed to shield themselves or their actions from judgment, especially when discrimination done BY these groups to others is systematically ignored. Until this is addressed, I view this behavior similarly as I do the religious fundies' behavior on the right. They both want restrictions placed on us all for the sake of their feelings instead of building a framework that'll support everyone's interests.
Of course, those are just a few examples where the parties differ. The most egregious attacks on liberty come from when they 'reach across the aisle' to hack off particularly large pieces (terror legislation, internet censorship, police power/habeus comitatus etc).
well, at least obliquely, the left wing prefers centralized, socialized, communal systems over independent ones.. The right is factionalized between neo-right (republican) and classic-right (libertarian) defaults..
actually, I've found those with lower uids to be more eloquent, but also more extreme and less flexible in their beliefs. they don't want rational discussion. they want to preach. the larger uid users, younger for the most part, just prattle whatever they've picked up from the media and whatever claptrap they've picked up from public school or their parents. Rarely are any of them really interested in looking at the boundaries of their assumptions. It's too bad because that's where interesting learning happens.
current left/right ideology is the problem, not a solution, and democrats and republicans prop up theirs as the everlasting solution to everything.. it's getting old, and that's why the tea party exists at all.
..and the left is full of rational upstanding people? what are you smoking? I know, how about both sides are full of nuts because these two incumbent parties have been in power so long, the ideologies are no longer congruent enough with reality to be useful.
...or maybe it's your own limitations, due to your own ideological attachments, that prevent you from seeing workable alternatives he sees. Just because someone graduated ivy league doesn't mean he's gotta be a rank and file liberal.
hmmm.. well I think the determination between 'smart' content and 'stupid' content relates to the reasons why it's being looked up. TV is a bit different as it's completely passive, and all programming is from established outlets who depend on ubiquitous eyeballs. In order to do that, it must appeal to the largest demographic, demanding insipid melodrama and whitewashed, politically correct truth, even in things like documentaries and news broadcasts. In contrast, it is still possible to find interesting content on the net.
oh well. I guess somethingawful was right all along! Now I must research this by finding blogs that agree with my bias.. --- the internet is a tool. like any tool it can have positive and negative effects on the user, remembering that positive and negative are relative terms.
This mass trend of trading power and property ownership for convenience will be the end of a free society, that's why it sucks. From a legal standpoint, I want the control, especially as long as I have the liability for the car's behavior. In terms of physical reality, I do not trust google's engineers with my life because I know that it's literally impossible to account for every situation, even if the code contains 0 bugs (also unlikely). Humans react slower than computers, but they are also much more situationally aware. We can't even automate our train systems yet and we still have collisions despite instrinsic, well defined physical limits (the track,linked cars) on how they move. There's no way in fuckin hell I'd get into a driverless/automated car at any speed over 15mph on an empty road in a flat midwest state, nevermind a busy suburban commercial area with 14 million events happening every second.
I find it ironic that people here believe that humans are such terrible intellects that they can't handle driving their own cars, yet we are supposed to believe that they are capable of programming computers sufficiently clever to avoid the mass stochastic catastrophes that only automation can bring to chaotic situations.
Apparently you lack understanding of the bureaucratic mind. Their solution would be to remove the manual overrides, leaving the owner with all the liability he had before, minus the control. I guarantee that the programmers, no matter how slick they think they are, have not accounted for every possibility. Humans are slower reacting than computers, but they are much more situationally aware.
I realize that today's phobic culture thinks safety is more important than anything else in ever growing lists of life activities, and that human beings are automatically the dumbest component of any systemic situation, but they don't acknowledge that removing the human from such systems just makes him dumber than he was before, necessitating even more stringent behavior controls. No thanks. You can keep your socialist utopia. I want no part of it.
if you don't have anyone running who does support the things you want, then effectively you have no voice.. that's what's happened here. the people running, and those who decide who ends up on ballots make sure that real democracy doesn't happen. statists, left or right, don't care what happens beyond their own interests.
who is going to pay $1000 for a piece of hardware with a halflife of maybe one year? this card is really worth about $400 at most.. and the 680 should be $200. what games actually take advantage of this? there are hardly any pc games worth playing nowadays:\. It's too bad too, because I LIKE new graphics hardware. it's always fun to play with, but at $1000 I can't justify it.
Slashdot Mirror
..and you seem to be defending a world where everyone should shed their protective layers and bond in some kind of emotional orgy.. That's the trend in culture nowadays and it's bad for us in the long run. it's what breeds this kind of extreme behavior in the first place, from suicide, to columbine. People have become vats of nitroglycerine, ready to go off at the smallest jab. People NEED to handle this better.. and, no, talking about your feelings and 'expressing your feminine side' doesn't work very well for guys, but, of course, everything is judged by feminine ideals nowadays...
people are weak. they should strive to be stronger than that and the culture should support this.. they don't know how to cope because we make sure we beat the spine out of 'em by the time they enter 6th grade, under the guise of 'preventing violence,' and promoting 'tolerance.' All it really does is is breed passive aggressive behavior, in both bullies and the bullied. this has a major role in both ravi's and clementi's behavior.
if you want privacy, don't have sex in a shared dorm room. I do'nt know what else to say.. This is just pragmatic, tactical logic. seriously, if there's a camera or a computer in the room, make sure it's off.
it's one thing to be seen by pepole.. it's another to be seen by a machine that makes a record of the event and uploads this fact, along with badly generated heuristics, to other systems belonging to people who don't give a shit what happens to you as a result of their use of said fact.
well good, then darwin in action.. the stupid are taken out of the equation.. you want to claim that americans are dumb and fat? lets filter that out of the gene pool. as an american, I don't have a problem with that.
the answer is to fix the law so that men aren't sexually discriminated against for the sake some woman's emotional whim..
of course it matters when the majority accepts a new set of expectations as normal/expected... even if this guy chose never to go to a bar, this kind of carding will crop up in other places as the majority gets used to it.. eventually it will affect him.
no. .the correct answer is to not collect the damn pictures in the first place. then no one has them.
it's not privacy by itself so much as anonymity working hand in hand with it.. it's one thing to be seen by humans at a club. it's another to be seen at a club by a network of cameras that upload your picture along with some (probably incorrect) heuristically generated stats to the internet (or worse, some marketing company's system for further analysis). sites like facebook took what was an innocuous event (friends taking pics of each other at a club) and turned it into an orwellian nightmare, not just because they make a publically accessible record of who was at the event, but because they use their own heuristics for auto-face recog. this shit DOES get abused.
I'm on board with the one that checks for current insurance. Install that fucker on every cop car.
why? it doesn't increase safety. If you want to protect yourself from litigiousness, do your part to minimize liability for traffic accidents. It's bad enough that insurance is marketed nowadays like it actually makes you safer on the road. it doesn't. it just makes insurance companies rich.
maybe if we didn't require insurance, and we made a lot of noise about it, people would pay more attention on the road. THAT would do a lot more for safety than enforcing draconian irrelevancies.
OF course, it needs to come with the protection from using that information for anything else, but driving is not a fucking right, and when risking my life and livelyhood with a 4000lb weapon, society has decided that you must have insurance.
oh.. well if SOCIETY says so, it must be right.. my bad. A society made up of majorities who can't be bothered to learn to drive well in the first place. yeah fuck you. I want to take away your insurance and MAKE you drive 'naked' on the road.. maybe then you'll get the fuck off your cellphones, leave the sex for the bedroom, and keep away from drugs while on the road. Then, if you hit someone, you'll be really fucked instead of making the rest of us pay for your ineptitude.
some people do change their hardware around.. your implication that this is not, or should not be a valid complaint is a bit condescending..
Interesting since the tea party I'm thinking about came about long before 2008. It's possible it was subverted, and if so, that's too bad, but the stated principles seem like the right way to go. Having a government that respects budgets and cannot just arbitrarily borrow to make up shortfalls is a good thing for ex.
do they work? from what I've read, western european 'soft' socialist countries are suffering from debt, crumbling infrastructure, and social problems from ultra liberal (as in lax) immigration policies. I don't want this for the USA. I think the USA and Europe could both learn a thing or two from each others' problems as well as from obvious 'you're doing it wrong' countries like N. Korea and the middle east.
the problem is bigger than just one party, and voting lesser of two evils will NOT solve it. honestly, washington is so fucked up right now, I want it to have as little involvement as possible with my own life. I guess that means I vote libertarian.. it's that or not vote at all.
we need a proper left wing party to balance out the crazy extreme of right wing paranoia, xenophobia, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, etc that has become ingrained in our right wing and libertarian dominated politics.
libertarian dominated? seriously?
as opposed to a proper right wing party to balance out the crazy extreme of left wing paranoid, runaway, overlegislation of everything, punitive overtaxation of the middle class, phobia of free speech critical of lobbyist values, and phobia of individual self defense, from public school policies that punish victims along with the bullies, to ever more byzantine gun ownership laws designed to make it nearly impossible to actually own one. I think these are examples of a far reaching phobia of a citzenry that is self-empowered in ANY context because an empowered citizenry doesn't need government support quite so much, and without that, there's little justification for expansion.
left wing use of terms like 'xenophobe' and 'homophobe' are false dilemmas designed to silence any criticism of non white/women/gay people (or any other subculture the democrats choose to drumbeat for), whether those attributes have contextual relevance to the accusation or not. The fact these are marginalized at times does not justify their desire to get 'hate-speech' and other one-way anti-discrimination law passed to shield themselves or their actions from judgment, especially when discrimination done BY these groups to others is systematically ignored. Until this is addressed, I view this behavior similarly as I do the religious fundies' behavior on the right. They both want restrictions placed on us all for the sake of their feelings instead of building a framework that'll support everyone's interests.
Of course, those are just a few examples where the parties differ. The most egregious attacks on liberty come from when they 'reach across the aisle' to hack off particularly large pieces (terror legislation, internet censorship, police power/habeus comitatus etc).
well, at least obliquely, the left wing prefers centralized, socialized, communal systems over independent ones.. The right is factionalized between neo-right (republican) and classic-right (libertarian) defaults..
actually, I've found those with lower uids to be more eloquent, but also more extreme and less flexible in their beliefs. they don't want rational discussion. they want to preach. the larger uid users, younger for the most part, just prattle whatever they've picked up from the media and whatever claptrap they've picked up from public school or their parents. Rarely are any of them really interested in looking at the boundaries of their assumptions. It's too bad because that's where interesting learning happens.
take your own advice.. after all, if he had a 'well rounded' education, he must absolutely be a rank and file liberal.
current left/right ideology is the problem, not a solution, and democrats and republicans prop up theirs as the everlasting solution to everything.. it's getting old, and that's why the tea party exists at all.
..and the left is full of rational upstanding people? what are you smoking? I know, how about both sides are full of nuts because these two incumbent parties have been in power so long, the ideologies are no longer congruent enough with reality to be useful.
...or maybe it's your own limitations, due to your own ideological attachments, that prevent you from seeing workable alternatives he sees. Just because someone graduated ivy league doesn't mean he's gotta be a rank and file liberal.
define 'real platform' please..
hmmm.. well I think the determination between 'smart' content and 'stupid' content relates to the reasons why it's being looked up. TV is a bit different as it's completely passive, and all programming is from established outlets who depend on ubiquitous eyeballs. In order to do that, it must appeal to the largest demographic, demanding insipid melodrama and whitewashed, politically correct truth, even in things like documentaries and news broadcasts. In contrast, it is still possible to find interesting content on the net.
oh well. I guess somethingawful was right all along! Now I must research this by finding blogs that agree with my bias..
---
the internet is a tool. like any tool it can have positive and negative effects on the user, remembering that positive and negative are relative terms.
This mass trend of trading power and property ownership for convenience will be the end of a free society, that's why it sucks. From a legal standpoint, I want the control, especially as long as I have the liability for the car's behavior. In terms of physical reality, I do not trust google's engineers with my life because I know that it's literally impossible to account for every situation, even if the code contains 0 bugs (also unlikely). Humans react slower than computers, but they are also much more situationally aware. We can't even automate our train systems yet and we still have collisions despite instrinsic, well defined physical limits (the track,linked cars) on how they move. There's no way in fuckin hell I'd get into a driverless/automated car at any speed over 15mph on an empty road in a flat midwest state, nevermind a busy suburban commercial area with 14 million events happening every second.
I find it ironic that people here believe that humans are such terrible intellects that they can't handle driving their own cars, yet we are supposed to believe that they are capable of programming computers sufficiently clever to avoid the mass stochastic catastrophes that only automation can bring to chaotic situations.
Apparently you lack understanding of the bureaucratic mind. Their solution would be to remove the manual overrides, leaving the owner with all the liability he had before, minus the control. I guarantee that the programmers, no matter how slick they think they are, have not accounted for every possibility. Humans are slower reacting than computers, but they are much more situationally aware.
I realize that today's phobic culture thinks safety is more important than anything else in ever growing lists of life activities, and that human beings are automatically the dumbest component of any systemic situation, but they don't acknowledge that removing the human from such systems just makes him dumber than he was before, necessitating even more stringent behavior controls. No thanks. You can keep your socialist utopia. I want no part of it.
if you don't have anyone running who does support the things you want, then effectively you have no voice.. that's what's happened here. the people running, and those who decide who ends up on ballots make sure that real democracy doesn't happen. statists, left or right, don't care what happens beyond their own interests.
who is going to pay $1000 for a piece of hardware with a halflife of maybe one year? this card is really worth about $400 at most.. and the 680 should be $200. what games actually take advantage of this? there are hardly any pc games worth playing nowadays :\. It's too bad too, because I LIKE new graphics hardware. it's always fun to play with, but at $1000 I can't justify it.