As a militant agnostic, I have to point out that your post is nothing but flamebait.
It is devoid of argument outside of assertion. It has no foundation. It is an accusation with nothing behind it. You are almost begging people to flame you.
Intolerance of belief is just as bad as intolerance of non-belief. Indeed it gives those with a system of religion ammunition to fuel whatever persecution complex they're nursing. So it leads to backlash. You decried the Moral Majority in another post. Stop giving them bad things to say about us.
To quote the Letter to the Touro Synagogue: The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support....
May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. -- G. Washington.
along with a side-by-side comparison to what it will look like if you let YouTube pull your name from Google+
It will be the same, except that the G+ name has no underscore.
In either case, they are not my real names, and people like ESR complaining about the "sexygirl69" problem (it's not) can pound sand.
I can call myself whatever I want in meatspace as long as I'm not committing fraud or attempting to defraud someone. Why should I not be allowed to do this online?
This became an issue in the US when the court case was thrown out because the enforcement organization had rights to pursue violations
It's not just that. Bringing suit without standing pisses off judges because they have better things to do than waste their time listening to people who aren't damaged parties bringing suit.
These rights are not assignable without assigning the copyrights. The courts have said time and again that the only people with the standing to sue are the copyright holders themselves. This is settled law. It is the reason why Righthaven (an example of the above) is no longer a going concern and the lawyers associated with Righthaven have had to pay for court sanctions out of pocket.
Suing without having standing, and insisting you do, and fucking around with the court system and pissing off judges is a quick way to fines and disbarment.
Industry associations do not hold the copyrights. In English Common Law, the actual copyright holder (read publisher or author) is the one that has standing to sue.
If you look at the actual lawsuits in the US where we follow English Common Law with regards to this stuff, it's never "RIAA vs. Joe Anonymous" it's always "Universal Studios vs. Joe Anonymous." The RIAA and MPAA just have the loudest mouths, so journalists and common folk think it's them who are doing the suing when no such thing happened.
You must hold the copyright to have standing in court. Whatever industry associations there are in NZ, they are third parties and thus have no standing. Sure they can lobby and file briefs as amicus curiae, but they don't have any actual standing.
Rights holders want the current NZ$25 infringement notice processing fee payable to ISPs to be dropped to just a few dollars or even pennies, so that they can send out thousands of notices a month.
So what they're really saying that infringements actually cost them less than $25 per infringement in the long run. Because if it was like the thousands of dollars per, that they claim, they wouldn't have a bitch about a $25 fee. It would be a no-brainer and the battle against piracy would fatten their coffers easily even with the $25 fee. But no, they say it's too expensive. It's only too expensive if the net gain is negative.
>the ISPs want it increased to $100
Considering the vetting and such and going through the motions to send a customer a notice, I believe it. Even inter-office memos are not free. You'd be surprised what one actually costs if you measured it.
The IP enforcers have no leg to stand on with regards to this argument. By all rights, the ISPs should at least double their price. And the IP enforcers should shut up and take it.
Stone (everyone) Intaglio bronze plates (Romans, especially for Senate documents) Clay tablets (Babylonians) Parchment (Everyone) Acid free rag paper (Chinese and later the europeans) Linen - required in many town halls for registered surveys and plats (last hundred years) Mylar - also required for many town halls for registered surveys (ever since the invention of mylar drawing media).
We have clay tablets from thousands of years ago. We have parchment documents from hundreds of years ago We have paper documents from hundreds of years ago Linen became popular when it was machine made - it is extremely durable and will last hundreds of years if given even minimal care. Mylar can last thousands of years even after being abused.
One of the most indestructible and compact ways of storing data is punched mylar tape. It can be dumped in a bucket of oil in the shop, wiped off, and sent through the reader. It's simple to make a reader too. Herman Hollerith would have understood immediately how to read punched mylar tape had he been alive to see it. Mylar is also very stable, and not prone to rot. I would like to see the look on a wandering novice monk's face in a few thousand years unearthing an earthenware container packed with dessicant and spools of mylar and all of it entirely readable mechanically or electronically with simple tools.
It would be a new twist on the Sacred Shopping List.
And here we're merely talking about 25 years. Even a paperback written on fast-yellowing paper will survive that, given an airtight and light tight container and a pack or two of silica gel. Photographs on archival paper would be good. Microfiche would be excellent. Anything on an acid-free paper. Basically anything that can be read mechanically or optically including QR codes printed out on acid free paper with good ink.
Things to not store for 25 years and expect to be able to read: Any electronic format that depends on a proprietary reader in a proprietary format. That is *guaranteed* bit rot.
> Just because I choose to display something in public in my local street doesn't mean I am automatically handing over rights to the entire world
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy out on the street corner. All comers can see it. Yes, you are handing over rights to the entire world to see it. The SCOTUS has said time and again that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy out in public. This is the reality. Deal with it.
> VOIP call to your girlfriend?
That's not public. Wiretap laws say it's not public.
>email
That's not public. The ECPA says it's not.
Learn the difference between public and private speech. Learn the difference between protocols that are open to viewing by large amounts of people and p2p communications. Apparently you have problems distinguishing between the two.
>By your standard, the internet itself can be considered public
My standard is that if it's the equivalent of standing at the end of your driveway on the sidewalk and you're standing on a soapbox with a microphone, amp, and speaker, shouting your opinions to the world, don't expect people to ignore you. This is what you do when you post on Facebook, Usenet, or Slashdot.
Again, you have problems distinguishing between public and private communications. I suggest you evaluate whether you should be posting anywhere at all.
Posting to Facebook even back when it was strictly an academics-only community still meant that whatever you posted was public to that community. And if you think it was cloistered and that nobody from the outside could get in and read your stuff, you were delusional.
Go ahead and rage that Facebook "changed its privacy policies." People who knew better didn't post photos of drunken bacchanalia, because they knew that doing so was stupid, even in a "closed" network. Only the people who threw caution to the wind were upset when Facebook opened up to the public.
Here's a clue: Don't post anything in public (even in a "cloistered setting") that you don't want your mom, or the cops, to see. Follow that rule and you'll have no problems whatsoever with privacy. Yes it's self censorship. It's also called common sense. I followed the rule even back in the 80s and 90s even on small systems. It has done me well.
When Dejanews showed up and everyone friggin' panicked, I didn't give a shit, because nobody could hold whatever I said against me anyway.
I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.
It's really no different than Usenet. Except with Usenet you don't have any control at all over who sees your post. Ever. It's not Facebook's or Google's fault that you can't figure out the filtering. Treat "social networking" as Usenet or BBS networks, and you're golden. It's not that hard. But wait there's more. Facebook has features that you can use to control *what other people say about you* - you can have tags (mentions of you) in other people's posts set to require your approval. How neat is that? And you can actually control who sees your posts, down to eliminating even single individuals. Want to blab a phone number or picture to all your "friends" but one? You can do it.
But wait, you say, Facebook knows all about you! Well, dearie, I hate to break it to you, but when I was an admin lo those many years ago, I saw who downloaded the watersports binaries. And no, they weren't about swimming. Nothing shocks me any more.
No, really, I see posts like yours, and when I mentally transport myself back to the 90s, it looks like you're whining. If you haven't learned how to manage your privacy by now, you shouldn't even be posting to Slashdot, announcing your views to the world here.
It was in the PDF available from the Texas GOP website.
They have since tried to distance themselves from it, but left it standing, because somehow they can't go back and remove it because of "rules."
The thing about the platform document is not just the critical thinking paragraph, it's the xenophobia and outright tinfoil haberdashery and millinery in the rest of the document. The opposition to critical thinking fits right in and completes the document.
I suggest you read the Texas GOP platform document itself. It's a laugh riot. You can't download it from the Texas GOP site anymore, because I guess someone figured out that actually publishing your stupid ideas and people identifying them as stupid leads to a backlash.
"the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implement Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purges."
I did not claim that anyone was actually doing this. Yet.
The Tea Party is indeed calling for the expulsion of democrats, gays, and muslims (non-christians) from the state workforce. That, sir, is calling for a purge.
You assumed so many things about me that are wrong and state things that I never said that I'm not even going to bother refuting them. I just don't know what to say except that you're an asshole.
I basically repeated fucking Martin NiemÃller at him.
You really didn't understand a single word I said.
When the purges come, encouraged and led by people like you, they will not stop at just the people you yourself hate, they will continue until they meet up with you, personally. This was true during The Terror and every purge in history.
... the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implement Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purges.
Because gays, democrats, and non-christians are evil, or something.
Fascism will come wrapped in the flag, and the ones purportedly against it like the Tea Party, are helping the security state and fascism along with gusto. They crave it.
Voter fraud is the distraction to the real issue - electoral fraud.
Voter fraud is low-reward, high risk. It makes no sense to stand in line more than once to vote, after standing in line for an hour each and travelling between towns to hide it. So say in an afternoon, you get to pull off 3 votes - 1 real vote, and 2 frauds. Woop de doo. You didn't affect an election much at all unless it's a squeaker. But you just committed two felonies, for which you can go to jail. Supposedly, if you listen to the talking heads decrying voter fraud, this is a rampant problem.
But anyone and everyone trying to measure voter fraud comes up with bupkis.
Compare and contrast with actual electoral fraud problems we've had over the recent years, with missing ballots, electronic vote flipping, etc. This doesn't get as much airplay, because the good ol' boys don't want you to know how your vote is being stolen by them. So they distract. They invent a fake controversy about voter fraud and represent that as to why your vote doesn't count like you think it should. The reality is that your vote is being flipped or disappeared if you are in a county or state with electronic voting machines with no paper records.
And there is no accounting in any of this for the actions of a dumbass Lance Corporal and his buddies inducing utter chaos into the system.
Scene: Djibouti near the Ethiopian Border. A bunch of Lance Corporal Marines and their CO.
"Stand watch here, and if anyone in Ethiopia comes over, you need to tell us and chase them back into Ethiopia. But under no circumstances are you to go into Ethiopia yourselves, not even if they're firing upon you. We mean it. Got that?"
"Sure thing"
Armed Ethiopians of doubtful allegiance cross the border into Djibouti Lance corporals enthusiastically chase them back and cross into Ethiopia themselves while armed
Possible outcome that didn't happen: "Daddy, what did you do in the Ethiopian War?" "Our unit started it."
This may or may not be true. But I tell this story to make a point. Like a butterfly flapping its wings in the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone to trigger a hurricane, the action of a few dumbasses can trigger some serious shit. Since we're talking psychohistory here, Hari Seldon's Plan broke down under the chaos of the Mule. You can do all the modelling you want, but complex systems such as human societies and such, are prone to chaos introduced by small numbers of influential people, whether they know it or not and good luck trying to model *that* and predict on it.
... the same technology is aimed not at sex, drug, organ, or baby traffickers, but rather ordinary citizens trying to organize against an oppressive government.
Google supposedly abandoned China over censorship. This is far and away more dangerous than mere filtering of words.
Slashdot Mirror
>a whole lot of stuff I didn't say, accusing me of endorsing physical and mental abuse of children
You're an asshole. You disgust me.
Meet your new status.
--
BMO
tolerance of superstition is not tolerance.
As a militant agnostic, I have to point out that your post is nothing but flamebait.
It is devoid of argument outside of assertion. It has no foundation. It is an accusation with nothing behind it. You are almost begging people to flame you.
Intolerance of belief is just as bad as intolerance of non-belief. Indeed it gives those with a system of religion ammunition to fuel whatever persecution complex they're nursing. So it leads to backlash. You decried the Moral Majority in another post. Stop giving them bad things to say about us.
To quote the Letter to the Touro Synagogue: The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ...
May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. -- G. Washington.
Go sit under your own fig tree.
--
BMO
along with a side-by-side comparison to what it will look like if you let YouTube pull your name from Google+
It will be the same, except that the G+ name has no underscore.
In either case, they are not my real names, and people like ESR complaining about the "sexygirl69" problem (it's not) can pound sand.
I can call myself whatever I want in meatspace as long as I'm not committing fraud or attempting to defraud someone. Why should I not be allowed to do this online?
--
BMO
This became an issue in the US when the court case was thrown out because the enforcement organization had rights to pursue violations
It's not just that. Bringing suit without standing pisses off judges because they have better things to do than waste their time listening to people who aren't damaged parties bringing suit.
These rights are not assignable without assigning the copyrights. The courts have said time and again that the only people with the standing to sue are the copyright holders themselves. This is settled law. It is the reason why Righthaven (an example of the above) is no longer a going concern and the lawyers associated with Righthaven have had to pay for court sanctions out of pocket.
Suing without having standing, and insisting you do, and fucking around with the court system and pissing off judges is a quick way to fines and disbarment.
--
BMO
Industry associations do not hold the copyrights. In English Common Law, the actual copyright holder (read publisher or author) is the one that has standing to sue.
If you look at the actual lawsuits in the US where we follow English Common Law with regards to this stuff, it's never "RIAA vs. Joe Anonymous" it's always "Universal Studios vs. Joe Anonymous." The RIAA and MPAA just have the loudest mouths, so journalists and common folk think it's them who are doing the suing when no such thing happened.
You must hold the copyright to have standing in court. Whatever industry associations there are in NZ, they are third parties and thus have no standing. Sure they can lobby and file briefs as amicus curiae, but they don't have any actual standing.
--
BMO
Rights holders want the current NZ$25 infringement notice processing fee payable to ISPs to be dropped to just a few dollars or even pennies, so that they can send out thousands of notices a month.
So what they're really saying that infringements actually cost them less than $25 per infringement in the long run. Because if it was like the thousands of dollars per, that they claim, they wouldn't have a bitch about a $25 fee. It would be a no-brainer and the battle against piracy would fatten their coffers easily even with the $25 fee. But no, they say it's too expensive. It's only too expensive if the net gain is negative.
>the ISPs want it increased to $100
Considering the vetting and such and going through the motions to send a customer a notice, I believe it. Even inter-office memos are not free. You'd be surprised what one actually costs if you measured it.
The IP enforcers have no leg to stand on with regards to this argument. By all rights, the ISPs should at least double their price. And the IP enforcers should shut up and take it.
--
BMO
> It's not about how it is, it's how it should be.
"Wish in one hand, and shit in the other. See which one fills first."
--
BMO
Stone (everyone)
Intaglio bronze plates (Romans, especially for Senate documents)
Clay tablets (Babylonians)
Parchment (Everyone)
Acid free rag paper (Chinese and later the europeans)
Linen - required in many town halls for registered surveys and plats (last hundred years)
Mylar - also required for many town halls for registered surveys (ever since the invention of mylar drawing media).
We have clay tablets from thousands of years ago.
We have parchment documents from hundreds of years ago
We have paper documents from hundreds of years ago
Linen became popular when it was machine made - it is extremely durable and will last hundreds of years if given even minimal care.
Mylar can last thousands of years even after being abused.
One of the most indestructible and compact ways of storing data is punched mylar tape. It can be dumped in a bucket of oil in the shop, wiped off, and sent through the reader. It's simple to make a reader too. Herman Hollerith would have understood immediately how to read punched mylar tape had he been alive to see it. Mylar is also very stable, and not prone to rot. I would like to see the look on a wandering novice monk's face in a few thousand years unearthing an earthenware container packed with dessicant and spools of mylar and all of it entirely readable mechanically or electronically with simple tools.
It would be a new twist on the Sacred Shopping List.
And here we're merely talking about 25 years. Even a paperback written on fast-yellowing paper will survive that, given an airtight and light tight container and a pack or two of silica gel. Photographs on archival paper would be good. Microfiche would be excellent. Anything on an acid-free paper. Basically anything that can be read mechanically or optically including QR codes printed out on acid free paper with good ink.
Things to not store for 25 years and expect to be able to read: Any electronic format that depends on a proprietary reader in a proprietary format. That is *guaranteed* bit rot.
--
BMO
> Just because I choose to display something in public in my local street doesn't mean I am automatically handing over rights to the entire world
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy out on the street corner. All comers can see it. Yes, you are handing over rights to the entire world to see it. The SCOTUS has said time and again that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy out in public. This is the reality. Deal with it.
> VOIP call to your girlfriend?
That's not public. Wiretap laws say it's not public.
>email
That's not public. The ECPA says it's not.
Learn the difference between public and private speech. Learn the difference between protocols that are open to viewing by large amounts of people and p2p communications. Apparently you have problems distinguishing between the two.
>By your standard, the internet itself can be considered public
My standard is that if it's the equivalent of standing at the end of your driveway on the sidewalk and you're standing on a soapbox with a microphone, amp, and speaker, shouting your opinions to the world, don't expect people to ignore you. This is what you do when you post on Facebook, Usenet, or Slashdot.
Again, you have problems distinguishing between public and private communications. I suggest you evaluate whether you should be posting anywhere at all.
--
BMO
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess Leia
http://youtu.be/-wntX-a3jSY
"Did you know that if you put a little hat on a snowball, can last a long time in Hell?" -- Dogbert.
http://i.imgur.com/iFd5w.jpg
--
BMO
No, it's not bullshit.
Posting to Facebook even back when it was strictly an academics-only community still meant that whatever you posted was public to that community. And if you think it was cloistered and that nobody from the outside could get in and read your stuff, you were delusional.
Go ahead and rage that Facebook "changed its privacy policies." People who knew better didn't post photos of drunken bacchanalia, because they knew that doing so was stupid, even in a "closed" network. Only the people who threw caution to the wind were upset when Facebook opened up to the public.
Here's a clue: Don't post anything in public (even in a "cloistered setting") that you don't want your mom, or the cops, to see. Follow that rule and you'll have no problems whatsoever with privacy. Yes it's self censorship. It's also called common sense. I followed the rule even back in the 80s and 90s even on small systems. It has done me well.
When Dejanews showed up and everyone friggin' panicked, I didn't give a shit, because nobody could hold whatever I said against me anyway.
--
BMO
I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.
It's really no different than Usenet. Except with Usenet you don't have any control at all over who sees your post. Ever. It's not Facebook's or Google's fault that you can't figure out the filtering. Treat "social networking" as Usenet or BBS networks, and you're golden. It's not that hard. But wait there's more. Facebook has features that you can use to control *what other people say about you* - you can have tags (mentions of you) in other people's posts set to require your approval. How neat is that? And you can actually control who sees your posts, down to eliminating even single individuals. Want to blab a phone number or picture to all your "friends" but one? You can do it.
But wait, you say, Facebook knows all about you! Well, dearie, I hate to break it to you, but when I was an admin lo those many years ago, I saw who downloaded the watersports binaries. And no, they weren't about swimming. Nothing shocks me any more.
No, really, I see posts like yours, and when I mentally transport myself back to the 90s, it looks like you're whining. If you haven't learned how to manage your privacy by now, you shouldn't even be posting to Slashdot, announcing your views to the world here.
--
BMO
But that's not their objection to critical thinking.
Their objection is the questioning of authority. It's right there in the statement itself. Way to fail reading comprehension.
--
BMO
It was in the PDF available from the Texas GOP website.
They have since tried to distance themselves from it, but left it standing, because somehow they can't go back and remove it because of "rules."
The thing about the platform document is not just the critical thinking paragraph, it's the xenophobia and outright tinfoil haberdashery and millinery in the rest of the document. The opposition to critical thinking fits right in and completes the document.
I suggest you read the Texas GOP platform document itself. It's a laugh riot. You can't download it from the Texas GOP site anymore, because I guess someone figured out that actually publishing your stupid ideas and people identifying them as stupid leads to a backlash.
So let's go with this.
http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/2012-Platform-Final.pdf?docID=3201
Read. It doesn't disappoint. It's even more crazy than the 2008 platform.
Be fuckin' amazed that people actually think like this.
--
BMO
>they should be pushing the government to make the border secure.
How much are you willing to spend?
And btw, border security is tighter now than it ever was under Bush. Reality, how does it effin' work?
--
BMO
I said:
"the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implement Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purges."
I did not claim that anyone was actually doing this. Yet.
The Tea Party is indeed calling for the expulsion of democrats, gays, and muslims (non-christians) from the state workforce. That, sir, is calling for a purge.
Now kindly fuck off.
--
BMO
It's interesting that you don't seem to be able to conceive of opposing something without trying to kill people.
Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
--
MO
You assumed so many things about me that are wrong and state things that I never said that I'm not even going to bother refuting them. I just don't know what to say except that you're an asshole.
I basically repeated fucking Martin NiemÃller at him.
Jerk.
--
BMO
You should google, but I'll spoonfeed it to you.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/tennessee_tea_party_bill_haslam.php
--
BMO
You really didn't understand a single word I said.
When the purges come, encouraged and led by people like you, they will not stop at just the people you yourself hate, they will continue until they meet up with you, personally. This was true during The Terror and every purge in history.
Here's your shirt.
--
BMO
... the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implement Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purges.
Because gays, democrats, and non-christians are evil, or something.
Fascism will come wrapped in the flag, and the ones purportedly against it like the Tea Party, are helping the security state and fascism along with gusto. They crave it.
Brown shirts for everyone.
--
BMO
Nah, no chance for vote fraud there.
Voter fraud is the distraction to the real issue - electoral fraud.
Voter fraud is low-reward, high risk. It makes no sense to stand in line more than once to vote, after standing in line for an hour each and travelling between towns to hide it. So say in an afternoon, you get to pull off 3 votes - 1 real vote, and 2 frauds. Woop de doo. You didn't affect an election much at all unless it's a squeaker. But you just committed two felonies, for which you can go to jail. Supposedly, if you listen to the talking heads decrying voter fraud, this is a rampant problem.
But anyone and everyone trying to measure voter fraud comes up with bupkis.
Compare and contrast with actual electoral fraud problems we've had over the recent years, with missing ballots, electronic vote flipping, etc. This doesn't get as much airplay, because the good ol' boys don't want you to know how your vote is being stolen by them. So they distract. They invent a fake controversy about voter fraud and represent that as to why your vote doesn't count like you think it should. The reality is that your vote is being flipped or disappeared if you are in a county or state with electronic voting machines with no paper records.
--
BMO
And there is no accounting in any of this for the actions of a dumbass Lance Corporal and his buddies inducing utter chaos into the system.
Scene: Djibouti near the Ethiopian Border. A bunch of Lance Corporal Marines and their CO.
"Stand watch here, and if anyone in Ethiopia comes over, you need to tell us and chase them back into Ethiopia. But under no circumstances are you to go into Ethiopia yourselves, not even if they're firing upon you. We mean it. Got that?"
"Sure thing"
Armed Ethiopians of doubtful allegiance cross the border into Djibouti
Lance corporals enthusiastically chase them back and cross into Ethiopia themselves while armed
Possible outcome that didn't happen:
"Daddy, what did you do in the Ethiopian War?"
"Our unit started it."
This may or may not be true. But I tell this story to make a point. Like a butterfly flapping its wings in the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone to trigger a hurricane, the action of a few dumbasses can trigger some serious shit. Since we're talking psychohistory here, Hari Seldon's Plan broke down under the chaos of the Mule. You can do all the modelling you want, but complex systems such as human societies and such, are prone to chaos introduced by small numbers of influential people, whether they know it or not and good luck trying to model *that* and predict on it.
--
BMO
2. stop indexing stuff related to illegal keywords!
What, exactly, are these?
Explain. Give 5 examples and the law that says they're illegal.
>more farcical stuff I shall not even deign to ask you to back up
>making the searching for certain terms a red flag
You're quite the totalitarian bootlicker.
--
BMO
... the same technology is aimed not at sex, drug, organ, or baby traffickers, but rather ordinary citizens trying to organize against an oppressive government.
Google supposedly abandoned China over censorship. This is far and away more dangerous than mere filtering of words.
--
BMO