Re:only fools learn from their own mistakes...
on
Feed
·
· Score: 1
As daunting as the task may appear; we must concentrate our energies on the only object we can truly exhibit a total confidence of control over; ourselves. Taking on the masses would be a frivolous pursuit indeed.
only fools learn from their own mistakes...
on
Feed
·
· Score: 1
repetitive themes are an indication of nothing more than a lack of creative insight, or are they? putting aside the mundane references to a futuristic dystopia, i found myself intrigued by the closing paragraph; the more pertinent theme takes its place as the concluding clause: 'so we can thoughtfully avoid it.' I find it difficult to comment on the status quo without being cynical; i must, however, maintain a positive frame of mind in respect to the future; the defeatist attitude encourages nothing more than apathy. What are seemingly more and more people trying to get across to the masses without presenting themselves as the paranoid, stimulant driven, conspiracy theorists? With the world being so dynamically active, i find it hard to envision how much control we have over our changing planet. With the advent of the industrial revolution come consequences as well; natural disasters have shown a consistent increase over the past 50 years; statistics show that over the stated period (http://www.cipra.de/berchtesgaden/reden/Kron.engl.pdf); we have endured a three-fold increase in the frequency of natural disasters; an eight-fold increase in economic losses and a fourteen-fold increase in insured losses. Do we really have to come face to face, as individuals, with the ultimate powers of nature to initiate the change necessary? The news is saturated with disaster and plight, while the seemingly singular positive response from the masses are when we choose to revel in our own glory - the world cups, the olympic games... imagine the implications of a major natural disaster striking an economic hub, a threat that millions already face. What happens when humans cease to exist as consumerists, but as survivalists instead? Most of us agree that the future looks bleak and discouraging; why aren't we doing something about it yet?
the virtual metropolitan landscape, very much like the cities that countless numbers inhabit and interact with, is a dangerous place. interactions in both instances share the same pre-requisite in order to avoid being the victim of crime; awareness. if you store sensitive information on your computer, its probably a good idea to utilize a firewall; if you don't have a virus detector, its probably a good idea not to open any *.exe attatchments in emails (or anytime for that matter); if you REALLY want to remain anonymous on the web, then its probably a good idea not to give out your actual personal details for every forum/online community you decide to join. You certainly don't go flashing your passport to everyone in the streets when you're traveling, why do it on the net? being aware, and in turn preparing one's self accordingly should be what net users do in the face of a threat instead of leaving it to be solved by someone else...
as for my opinions concerning online vigilantes; i feel as though most will reference their previous encounters, if any, with vigilantes of the sort in order to aid their decision. this is an fallacious source of information so i will try to omit any bias in my answer. in order to be a vigilante, one must assume the role of a moral activist; the discrepancies arise when you juxtapose the vigilante's conceptions of morally 'right' behaviour and what the law considers to be morally 'right' behaviour. the eternal struggle between 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'evil' rears its head once again; really its merely perception that influences most judgements of the individual.
in this case, the vigilante didnt display any malicious intent so i cant judge him to be immoral, nor can i assume his intentions as being moral. at the end of the day, i find myself not far from where i began; i think it's our own responsibility to be aware of the dangers that the net poses and not that of a 'concerned teacher.' i dont really mind online vigilantes as long as they're willing to accept responsibility for their actions (which may include being persecuted by the law they supposedly are trying to support or, getting through to net communities and enterprises to buckle up before they actually become victims.)
Slashdot Mirror
As daunting as the task may appear; we must concentrate our energies on the only object we can truly exhibit a total confidence of control over; ourselves. Taking on the masses would be a frivolous pursuit indeed.
repetitive themes are an indication of nothing more than a lack of creative insight, or are they? putting aside the mundane references to a futuristic dystopia, i found myself intrigued by the closing paragraph; the more pertinent theme takes its place as the concluding clause:l .pdf); we have endured a three-fold increase in the frequency of natural disasters; an eight-fold increase in economic losses and a fourteen-fold increase in insured losses. Do we really have to come face to face, as individuals, with the ultimate powers of nature to initiate the change necessary? The news is saturated with disaster and plight, while the seemingly singular positive response from the masses are when we choose to revel in our own glory - the world cups, the olympic games... imagine the implications of a major natural disaster striking an economic hub, a threat that millions already face. What happens when humans cease to exist as consumerists, but as survivalists instead? Most of us agree that the future looks bleak and discouraging; why aren't we doing something about it yet?
'so we can thoughtfully avoid it.'
I find it difficult to comment on the status quo without being cynical; i must, however, maintain a positive frame of mind in respect to the future; the defeatist attitude encourages nothing more than apathy. What are seemingly more and more people trying to get across to the masses without presenting themselves as the paranoid, stimulant driven, conspiracy theorists?
With the world being so dynamically active, i find it hard to envision how much control we have over our changing planet. With the advent of the industrial revolution come consequences as well; natural disasters have shown a consistent increase over the past 50 years; statistics show that over the stated period (http://www.cipra.de/berchtesgaden/reden/Kron.eng
the virtual metropolitan landscape, very much like the cities that countless numbers inhabit and interact with, is a dangerous place. interactions in both instances share the same pre-requisite in order to avoid being the victim of crime; awareness. if you store sensitive information on your computer, its probably a good idea to utilize a firewall; if you don't have a virus detector, its probably a good idea not to open any *.exe attatchments in emails (or anytime for that matter); if you REALLY want to remain anonymous on the web, then its probably a good idea not to give out your actual personal details for every forum/online community you decide to join. You certainly don't go flashing your passport to everyone in the streets when you're traveling, why do it on the net? being aware, and in turn preparing one's self accordingly should be what net users do in the face of a threat instead of leaving it to be solved by someone else... as for my opinions concerning online vigilantes; i feel as though most will reference their previous encounters, if any, with vigilantes of the sort in order to aid their decision. this is an fallacious source of information so i will try to omit any bias in my answer. in order to be a vigilante, one must assume the role of a moral activist; the discrepancies arise when you juxtapose the vigilante's conceptions of morally 'right' behaviour and what the law considers to be morally 'right' behaviour. the eternal struggle between 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'evil' rears its head once again; really its merely perception that influences most judgements of the individual. in this case, the vigilante didnt display any malicious intent so i cant judge him to be immoral, nor can i assume his intentions as being moral. at the end of the day, i find myself not far from where i began; i think it's our own responsibility to be aware of the dangers that the net poses and not that of a 'concerned teacher.' i dont really mind online vigilantes as long as they're willing to accept responsibility for their actions (which may include being persecuted by the law they supposedly are trying to support or, getting through to net communities and enterprises to buckle up before they actually become victims.)