Nowadays, it means wearing heavy framed glasses with non-prescription lenses, and watching shitty bands on your Mac laptop in a coffee shop, i.e. it's a subset of hipsterdom, but with ironically bad haircuts instead of ironically bad facial hair.
A further subset is teenage girls who, like, read a book once and are randomly quirky.
When you go to McDonalds you know you will pay less for a meal
Apart from the minuscule children's meals, I've always found McDonalds to be relatively expensive, since you need to have two or three burgers to feel reasonably satisfied. Their food appears to be mostly air and sugar to me.
>Remarkably, not everyone on this planet wants to spend all of their movie-viewing time on art-house pieces with complicated themes
You make it sound as though you have a movie-viewing quota that you have to fill.
Crap music or TV in the background is one thing, but if you're paying to watch a movie choose a decent one. And if there aren't any around, read a book or something.
Well, to counterpoint your Edge of Tomorrow - Pacific Rim did pretty damn good ($190mil budget, $441 Gross). That was en entirely new IP. Could just be that Edge of Tomorrow sucked... or people (like me) don't care to see Tom Cruise in movies because all I can think of is "That dude is a crazy scientologist".
If you refused to watch films based on the actors' beliefs, you'd pretty soon run out of things to see. John Travolta is undoubtedly a twat in real life, but that doesn't stop me enjoying Pulp Fiction.
And it's not just scientology, there are a whole bunch of actors who believe in new age, pseudo-mystical self-improvement crap, not to mention imperialists, neo-fascists and vegans.
Tomorrowland was directed and partially written by Brad Brad, whose previous movies (the Incredibles and Ratatouille) were known for philosophy that sometimes branched into Ayn Randian Objectivism
I don't think so. Both the Incredibles and Ratatouille had elements of humour, which is something entirely alien to Randroids.
Well That and given the number of transactions they can prove he was involved in... I'm sure it is thousands...
Would you prefer that those thousands of transactions occur on street corners? Or on school playgrounds? By moving these transactions to the privacy and safety of the web, he was providing a useful public service.
Yeah, try using that defence when you're arrested for owning a string of crack houses and safety conscious hi tech meth labs.
I've supported fraudsters, getting enough information to protect myself from them. Someone offering to kill for you isn't right in the head. Pissing them off by rudely declining "fuck off" would probably not be a wise move. Failing to rebuff immediately someone who approached you is far from soliciting them, or transacting with them.
He should just have hired a second hitman to kill the first hitman who was soliciting him. Then hired a third hitman to kill the second hitman so there were no witnesses to the hit on the first hitman. And so on.
And each step generates pure free market trade free from government interference, and is therefore a Good Thing.
Having laws against child rape and murder, and punishments for child rapists and murderers doesn't prevent child rape and murder, but it certainly reduces them.
Whether prohibiting drugs is a good idea in the first place is a different question.
he has been charged, separately with murder for hire
I have seen it seriously argued by libertarians here that this is not even a crime: somehow it's just a conversation between two people (which is free speech) and if the hitman happens to murder someone, that's entirely up to him. The money that passes between them is presumably just paying for their time, like with a professional escort.
I think you mean "victimless crimes". There are plenty of non-violent crimes like (e.g. money laundering) that are not victimless. Victimless crimes are those who have no unwilling partcicipants who are harmed (i.e. victims).
Drugs certainly harm lots of people, but these people are "willing participants" in the legal sense of the word, and therefore not victims in the legal sense of the word.
The illicit drug industry is certainly exploitive, like how payday loans are exploitive, but these people are still making their own (albeit very poor) decisions.
They could probably be considered victims in some broad and indirect way, but not in the same way as someone who is murdered or assaulted.
The people harmed by drugs also include children, relatives, friends, lovers, business owners, hospitals, law enforcement, passers by and society as a whole.
Whether they are legally victims is another question, but it is naive to say that only the meth addict himself is affected.
And so, all these "well armed" people. Deluded. Meeting up with other well armed people to talk about being well armed, shooting holes at bogeys in their minds and Ignorantly re-parsing 18th century English texts as their children run around at their feet, loving it, emulating, fingering safety locks and shooting their kid sisters in the head. It's worth bearing in mind that a well-armed militia would be called an insurgency these days and would be met with a well-armed government. It's hard for me imagine any kind of scenario where the "well armed" would actually "win' any kind of serious test of their well-armedness. In short, they'd get their arse kicked.
The "well-armed militia" people basically have to assume that there is a simultaneous mass uprising and/or wholesale mutiny by the armed forces in order for them to succeed.
In either of these situations, it is irrelevant whether you start off with a few guns in private hands or not.
A true mass uprising can only be defeated by killing half the population, and that is just not the way things go. And if you don't have a mutiny, the armed forces will always outgun the few patriots with hunting rifles and handguns.
It is incredibly easy to talk about revolution, opposing the government and so on, but to actually achieve something requires political organisation, not stockpiling a few assault rifles.
As evidenced by a post above, men's rights activists have their little cliques (MGTOW, PUA, MRA) so it's a bit like the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea bit in Life of Brian.
Slashdot Mirror
>> I've taken a look at Slashdot's homepage with no adblock or anything
Who would want to surf the net without adblock ?
Well, people at work who aren't allowed to install add-ons or alternative browsers, for one.
Every other forum on the internet has emoticons
And every other forum on the internet ends up looking like a pre- teen's facebook conversation.
WTF is "geek culture"?
Nowadays, it means wearing heavy framed glasses with non-prescription lenses, and watching shitty bands on your Mac laptop in a coffee shop, i.e. it's a subset of hipsterdom, but with ironically bad haircuts instead of ironically bad facial hair.
A further subset is teenage girls who, like, read a book once and are randomly quirky.
It was preachy and moralizing
Translation: I disagreed with its politics.
no one is sticking a pistol to your head forcing you to eat at McDonalds or watch Disney films
You obviously don't have children.
When you go to McDonalds you know you will pay less for a meal
Apart from the minuscule children's meals, I've always found McDonalds to be relatively expensive, since you need to have two or three burgers to feel reasonably satisfied. Their food appears to be mostly air and sugar to me.
>Remarkably, not everyone on this planet wants to spend all of their movie-viewing time on art-house pieces with complicated themes
You make it sound as though you have a movie-viewing quota that you have to fill.
Crap music or TV in the background is one thing, but if you're paying to watch a movie choose a decent one. And if there aren't any around, read a book or something.
Well, to counterpoint your Edge of Tomorrow - Pacific Rim did pretty damn good ($190mil budget, $441 Gross). That was en entirely new IP. Could just be that Edge of Tomorrow sucked... or people (like me) don't care to see Tom Cruise in movies because all I can think of is "That dude is a crazy scientologist".
If you refused to watch films based on the actors' beliefs, you'd pretty soon run out of things to see. John Travolta is undoubtedly a twat in real life, but that doesn't stop me enjoying Pulp Fiction.
And it's not just scientology, there are a whole bunch of actors who believe in new age, pseudo-mystical self-improvement crap, not to mention imperialists, neo-fascists and vegans.
Tomorrowland was directed and partially written by Brad Brad, whose previous movies (the Incredibles and Ratatouille) were known for philosophy that sometimes branched into Ayn Randian Objectivism
I don't think so. Both the Incredibles and Ratatouille had elements of humour, which is something entirely alien to Randroids.
This is a porn-driven OS enhancement, right?
Who needs multiple windows to look at porn? Full screen single app viewing is precisely what, um, my friends use for looking at porn.
This is very old news. Multi-window Android is already here for literally years. Made by Samsung.
As someone who has never bought a Samsung device, that's not terribly helpful.
You can use bluetooth mice and keyboards on Android.
Thereby negating the only advantage of a tablet, namely that you can "surf the interweb" one handed.
So I've heard.
In both specs and independent usage tests the iPhone 6 Plus outlasts the battery of the Nexus 6.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/...
This all reminds me of the fuel consumption figures published by car manufacturers, which have no connection to real world performance.
Well That and given the number of transactions they can prove he was involved in... I'm sure it is thousands...
Would you prefer that those thousands of transactions occur on street corners? Or on school playgrounds? By moving these transactions to the privacy and safety of the web, he was providing a useful public service.
Yeah, try using that defence when you're arrested for owning a string of crack houses and safety conscious hi tech meth labs.
I've supported fraudsters, getting enough information to protect myself from them. Someone offering to kill for you isn't right in the head. Pissing them off by rudely declining "fuck off" would probably not be a wise move. Failing to rebuff immediately someone who approached you is far from soliciting them, or transacting with them.
He should just have hired a second hitman to kill the first hitman who was soliciting him. Then hired a third hitman to kill the second hitman so there were no witnesses to the hit on the first hitman. And so on.
And each step generates pure free market trade free from government interference, and is therefore a Good Thing.
So arrest and prosecute the federal agent for attempted murder. He's the one who should be in jail. Not Ulbricht.
So if I pay you to kill someone, you should go to jail for murder if you're found out, but I've done nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished at all?
Or are you distinguishing between murder and conspiracy to murder, and just don't think the latter is a crime at all?
Prohibition simple doesn't work.
Having laws against child rape and murder, and punishments for child rapists and murderers doesn't prevent child rape and murder, but it certainly reduces them.
Whether prohibiting drugs is a good idea in the first place is a different question.
he has been charged, separately with murder for hire
I have seen it seriously argued by libertarians here that this is not even a crime: somehow it's just a conversation between two people (which is free speech) and if the hitman happens to murder someone, that's entirely up to him. The money that passes between them is presumably just paying for their time, like with a professional escort.
Silk Road had dispute resolution too.
By offering a wide choice of legbreakers and hitmen for hire?
individual liberty and free will is more important than any kind of societal objectives
So we should let individual psychotics own nuclear weapons and anthrax grenades and run around raping babies?
Grow up.
It's a question of balance.
I think you mean "victimless crimes". There are plenty of non-violent crimes like (e.g. money laundering) that are not victimless. Victimless crimes are those who have no unwilling partcicipants who are harmed (i.e. victims).
Drugs certainly harm lots of people, but these people are "willing participants" in the legal sense of the word, and therefore not victims in the legal sense of the word.
The illicit drug industry is certainly exploitive, like how payday loans are exploitive, but these people are still making their own (albeit very poor) decisions.
They could probably be considered victims in some broad and indirect way, but not in the same way as someone who is murdered or assaulted.
The people harmed by drugs also include children, relatives, friends, lovers, business owners, hospitals, law enforcement, passers by and society as a whole.
Whether they are legally victims is another question, but it is naive to say that only the meth addict himself is affected.
so does google get charged if someone looks up (using google) a hitman?? of course not in essence, all ross did was the same thing google does
No, a closer analogy would be to hiring a hitman via an ebay auction. And, ebay won't let you do that because it's illegal.
your [html] skills are not very impressive.
And so, all these "well armed" people. Deluded. Meeting up with other well armed people to talk about being well armed, shooting holes at bogeys in their minds and Ignorantly re-parsing 18th century English texts as their children run around at their feet, loving it, emulating, fingering safety locks and shooting their kid sisters in the head. It's worth bearing in mind that a well-armed militia would be called an insurgency these days and would be met with a well-armed government. It's hard for me imagine any kind of scenario where the "well armed" would actually "win' any kind of serious test of their well-armedness. In short, they'd get their arse kicked.
The "well-armed militia" people basically have to assume that there is a simultaneous mass uprising and/or wholesale mutiny by the armed forces in order for them to succeed.
In either of these situations, it is irrelevant whether you start off with a few guns in private hands or not.
A true mass uprising can only be defeated by killing half the population, and that is just not the way things go. And if you don't have a mutiny, the armed forces will always outgun the few patriots with hunting rifles and handguns.
It is incredibly easy to talk about revolution, opposing the government and so on, but to actually achieve something requires political organisation, not stockpiling a few assault rifles.
As evidenced by a post above, men's rights activists have their little cliques (MGTOW, PUA, MRA) so it's a bit like the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea bit in Life of Brian.
Yes, and the fiction has no requirement to use the mythology beyond inspiration.
Yes it does.
If you want a hammer wielding superhero with no connection to Norse mythology, call him Dave and have him come from Australia or something.