If they want you, they will. All you can do is make it hard enough, that they'll go for the easier ones first.
You seem to think that the security services operate on some sort of piece work basis, where they are credited purely on the number of bodies they bring in, irrespective of innocence or guilt, and so just trawl through the low hanging fruit to get their quotas in.
What you paranoid "internet security experts" don't seem to realise is that if they want you as an individual that badly, they won't be farting around gathering evidence on which dodgy web forums you post to, they'll just knock on your door one fine summer dawn and drag you off to a secret torture box in Wherethefuckistan.
You have nullified the impact of the statement. It was intended to activate the MK-ultra, project bluebird, operative to begin exposing details of CIA/NSA assassination plots against US judges. Due to your inept understanding of the battle of "them vs they" and the constant foiling of their plots by the White Knights of Justice, not to be confused with the "knights who say ni," I dare say that you have put many lives at risk. You insensitive clod!
The card is a queen of hearts.
LOL you evil bastard you've probably got him shitting his pants, desperately unplugging his router and putting his emergency escape plan into operation.
And so another teenager goes "missing" from his basement...
Yes, and always remember that if ANYONE disagrees with you or appears not to be taking you SERIOUSLY enough, they are undoubtedly a government spy trying to LULL you into a false sense of security before they TRACK your internet ADDRESS and send a black HELICOPTER gunship to wipe out your entire family.
Loved this gem from your linked article on gaining information:
An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by
reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon.
Well, those clever fucking security service bastards, eh?
I'll turn in my nerd card, but first I have to admit to having never heard of either of those.
It's primarily US nerds who are obsessed with comic books/movies and super heroes. A lot of us find evern the "serious" ones like Batman pretty feeble stuff.
In most non-US political philosophies, the government is considered as (ideally) the representative of the will of the people, not just a purely negative force imposed on businesses to tax them and make life difficult.
. If I wrote a specification in a technical manual with that level of ambiguity, I would be made an example of.
Yes, but he wasn't a technical author writing a technical manual, he was a politician speaking in an interview. IThere is a big difference. Al Gore didn't claim to have invented ethernet, or TCP/IP or html, or anything else. He was just saying that when he was a politician he was one of the main people who pushed for the funding of internet infrastructure.
He could have been more clear and specific. But exactly which part of his statement if demonstrably, factually incorrect?
That Al Gore took the initiative in creating something that already existed. "Create" implies that he knowingly took some action that caused an object to exist that previously did not. He did not do this.
It's true in the same way that Apple "created" the smartphone market. No they didn't invent the smartphone from scratch. Yes, there were earlier phones with most of the features of an iPhone. But they undeniably did start the boom in smartphones. (And, no, I don't like Apple and don't have an iPhone).
IBM/Intel/Microsoft didn't invent or create the PC, but they certainly were the ones responsible for it reaching a certain critical, (or rather popular and affordable) mass.
The US government including Al Gore took a marginal academic/military network and turned it into a the internet.
The internet arguably existed, in neophyte form, before he took office.
The internet arguably existed in embryonic form the first time someone designed a computer, since it was inevitable that once there was more than one they would be linked at some point.
So let's just credit Charles Babbage with inventing the internet. Or maybe the first person to use an abacus.
Apparently they found out on their own that the most efficient way for getting "crude dopamine-triggering effects" was "simulated weaponry".
Real weaponry is an efficient way of getting "dopamine triggering effects," thus my obsession as a teen with archery.
--
BMO
You can get quite a high from real life violence without weapons too, like joining in a riot and beating rivals to death with your fists and boots. That doesn't mean it's a good or clever thing.
Those making manipulative 'social games' who have studied psychology to understand how people feel rewarded already understand this (in theory), and have made games with a variety of methods of pleasing the player. It will probably be found that the theory matches the results of the experiments. This means instant rewards, periodic rewards, sparse rewards, novelty, and different game modes.
If you think FPS games aren't equally manipulative, you're dreaming.
You can't take the gun out of games, but you can make the gun non-violent. Take Portals for example. It's an extremely fulfilling game with a gun, that doesn't kill anyone.
The reason why players enjoy game have gun that kill other characters so much might stem from the fact that we as a society know that in real life they kill. Therefor we turn to shooter games to play the hero, and save the people from the evil terrorist, and not harm a soul in real life doing it.
Try all you want but the fact of the matter is, guns are part of the gaming culture and an even bigger part in story telling. That is untill something more harmful and destructive comes along.
Guns are inextricably linked with First Person Shooter games, for am extremely obvious reason.
Your error lies in assuming that the only game genre is FPS.
Yeah, fuck this science shit, let the "free market" (i.e. unfettered short term greed) decide on the future of our planet. What could possibly go wrong?
We all know that the problem with Enron was over-zealous goernment interference in the smooth running of a fine business.
It should be easy enough to monitor whether there is an increase in weather extremes, without bringing politics into it.
What so-called sceptics seem to forget is that (most) people who think AGW is true do so because of the weight of scientific evidence, not because they think it's cool. I, for one, would love to see some solid evidence that there are no man made climate change effects whatsoever.
I can honestly say that's it's been extremely hot these last two summers. HOWEVER I can also honestly say that's it's been extremely cold these last three winters.
Try living in the UK. The winters are getting colder and wetter. And so are the summers.
This does bring up one of the many supposed phenomena in this area, namely, that certain groups seem to have unusual difficulty in understanding their ideological opponents. Obviously, you're just one of the many which are handicapped in this area.
Just because you loathe and detest most of what someone believes in doesn't mean you don't understand what they're saying, or even why they're saying it.
I understand the causes, history, philosophy, psychology and logic behind Fascism and Capitalism. That doesn't mean I have to agree with either.
Slashdot Mirror
If they want you, they will. All you can do is make it hard enough, that they'll go for the easier ones first.
You seem to think that the security services operate on some sort of piece work basis, where they are credited purely on the number of bodies they bring in, irrespective of innocence or guilt, and so just trawl through the low hanging fruit to get their quotas in.
What you paranoid "internet security experts" don't seem to realise is that if they want you as an individual that badly, they won't be farting around gathering evidence on which dodgy web forums you post to, they'll just knock on your door one fine summer dawn and drag you off to a secret torture box in Wherethefuckistan.
You have nullified the impact of the statement. It was intended to activate the MK-ultra, project bluebird, operative to begin exposing details of CIA/NSA assassination plots against US judges. Due to your inept understanding of the battle of "them vs they" and the constant foiling of their plots by the White Knights of Justice, not to be confused with the "knights who say ni," I dare say that you have put many lives at risk. You insensitive clod!
The card is a queen of hearts.
LOL you evil bastard you've probably got him shitting his pants, desperately unplugging his router and putting his emergency escape plan into operation.
And so another teenager goes "missing" from his basement...
Yes, and always remember that if ANYONE disagrees with you or appears not to be taking you SERIOUSLY enough, they are undoubtedly a government spy trying to LULL you into a false sense of security before they TRACK your internet ADDRESS and send a black HELICOPTER gunship to wipe out your entire family.
An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon.
Well, those clever fucking security service bastards, eh?
I'll turn in my nerd card, but first I have to admit to having never heard of either of those.
It's primarily US nerds who are obsessed with comic books/movies and super heroes. A lot of us find evern the "serious" ones like Batman pretty feeble stuff.
Mainly the editorial section. There is a lot of good articles in the WSJ, although biased. You will always have bias, no matter what rag.
But not all biases are equal.
In most non-US political philosophies, the government is considered as (ideally) the representative of the will of the people, not just a purely negative force imposed on businesses to tax them and make life difficult.
. If I wrote a specification in a technical manual with that level of ambiguity, I would be made an example of.
Yes, but he wasn't a technical author writing a technical manual, he was a politician speaking in an interview. IThere is a big difference. Al Gore didn't claim to have invented ethernet, or TCP/IP or html, or anything else. He was just saying that when he was a politician he was one of the main people who pushed for the funding of internet infrastructure.
He could have been more clear and specific. But exactly which part of his statement if demonstrably, factually incorrect?
That Al Gore took the initiative in creating something that already existed. "Create" implies that he knowingly took some action that caused an object to exist that previously did not. He did not do this.
It's true in the same way that Apple "created" the smartphone market. No they didn't invent the smartphone from scratch. Yes, there were earlier phones with most of the features of an iPhone. But they undeniably did start the boom in smartphones. (And, no, I don't like Apple and don't have an iPhone).
IBM/Intel/Microsoft didn't invent or create the PC, but they certainly were the ones responsible for it reaching a certain critical, (or rather popular and affordable) mass.
The US government including Al Gore took a marginal academic/military network and turned it into a the internet.
The internet arguably existed, in neophyte form, before he took office.
The internet arguably existed in embryonic form the first time someone designed a computer, since it was inevitable that once there was more than one they would be linked at some point.
So let's just credit Charles Babbage with inventing the internet. Or maybe the first person to use an abacus.
From TFS: how many people don't use their laptop to charge their phone nowadays?).
Well, anyone who would rather charge their phone quicker directly from the mains, for a start.
Also, once you're carrying a laptop and transformer around anyway, the extra weight and bulk of a small phone charger is irrelevant
Apparently they found out on their own that the most efficient way for getting "crude dopamine-triggering effects" was "simulated weaponry".
Real weaponry is an efficient way of getting "dopamine triggering effects," thus my obsession as a teen with archery.
-- BMO
You can get quite a high from real life violence without weapons too, like joining in a riot and beating rivals to death with your fists and boots. That doesn't mean it's a good or clever thing.
Those making manipulative 'social games' who have studied psychology to understand how people feel rewarded already understand this (in theory), and have made games with a variety of methods of pleasing the player. It will probably be found that the theory matches the results of the experiments. This means instant rewards, periodic rewards, sparse rewards, novelty, and different game modes.
If you think FPS games aren't equally manipulative, you're dreaming.
You can't take the gun out of games, but you can make the gun non-violent. Take Portals for example. It's an extremely fulfilling game with a gun, that doesn't kill anyone.
The reason why players enjoy game have gun that kill other characters so much might stem from the fact that we as a society know that in real life they kill. Therefor we turn to shooter games to play the hero, and save the people from the evil terrorist, and not harm a soul in real life doing it.
Try all you want but the fact of the matter is, guns are part of the gaming culture and an even bigger part in story telling. That is untill something more harmful and destructive comes along.
Guns are inextricably linked with First Person Shooter games, for am extremely obvious reason.
Your error lies in assuming that the only game genre is FPS.
And anyway, games are about competition
Not necessarily, unless you include "competition against yourself to have more fun" which you could apply to anything if you stretched it far enough.
Yeah, fuck this science shit, let the "free market" (i.e. unfettered short term greed) decide on the future of our planet. What could possibly go wrong?
We all know that the problem with Enron was over-zealous goernment interference in the smooth running of a fine business.
I'm not sure where we could put enough reservoirs to make a difference.
As they are so vast, the obvious answer is - in the oceans.
The human body is mostly water, so overpopulation should offset a rise in the sea level.
I genuinely can't tell whether that was a joke, a piece of epic stupidity, or a snarky double-bluff piece of cleverness.
It should be easy enough to monitor whether there is an increase in weather extremes, without bringing politics into it.
What so-called sceptics seem to forget is that (most) people who think AGW is true do so because of the weight of scientific evidence, not because they think it's cool. I, for one, would love to see some solid evidence that there are no man made climate change effects whatsoever.
I can honestly say that's it's been extremely hot these last two summers. HOWEVER I can also honestly say that's it's been extremely cold these last three winters.
Try living in the UK. The winters are getting colder and wetter. And so are the summers.
How can they live with themselves. I don't know.
This does bring up one of the many supposed phenomena in this area, namely, that certain groups seem to have unusual difficulty in understanding their ideological opponents. Obviously, you're just one of the many which are handicapped in this area.
Just because you loathe and detest most of what someone believes in doesn't mean you don't understand what they're saying, or even why they're saying it.
I understand the causes, history, philosophy, psychology and logic behind Fascism and Capitalism. That doesn't mean I have to agree with either.
Go through all the alphabet if you like, but it still implies causality. It just isn't necessarily the relationship that's apparent at first glance.
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "implies" in everyday English.
"A implies B" means "A suggests that B is X" not "A proves that B is X."
"Implies" has a much stronger meaning in maths. "A=>B" pretty much means "B follows logically from A" (at least the way I was taught).
Do you keep and index all your household bills going back fifteen years, or are you just an incredibly tedious human being?
This scientific achievement clearly ranks right up there with discovery of the Higgs Boson. Is there a Nobel prize for underpants?
Economics.
even for men it makes sense and is more comfortable to have something to keep the dangly bits in check when you are for example running
I don't know about you, but I just wrap mine round my head as a sweatband.