Well that pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly... or as I like to put it "you can't polish a turd."
I didn't go see it because it looked like a stupid-ass movie... and hollywood wonders why they're losing sales.
Same with the RIAA...You weren't losing money because of P2P downloads, you're distributing shit...therefore you lose sales.
I can put my ass in a tupperware bowl and get the same thing for free. Well at least that's why I quit buying CDs.
I mean, back in the 70's there were greatly talented bands like led zepplin, van halen, pink floyd, doobie brothers, CCR...the list goes on. Now a days we have black dudes going "YO YO YO" and white dudes going "AAAAARRRRRRGH!"... That's not music, that's crap. But if I had to choose today between who has more talent, hip-hop or rock, I'd choose the hip-hop scene because at least they're creating some phat beats; they just need to work on the vocals a bit.
Rock in 2006, on the other hand, is just lame. You dont see awesome and talented musicians in these 'shit' bands like steve howe. The best talent out there is probably audioslave and even they suck.
Same goes with movies, most the crap that comes out is not worth the $10.50. Now if it were $5 then i'd be more inclined to go see more films at the movies because if it sux then oh well it was five bucks. But if the movie sux and its 10.50...well hell, that's dinner at a restaurant.
I guess what it really comes down to is people like to actually get something worth having for their money.
you guys are missing my point...
I was merely trying to point out that there is a lot of potential to create great harm. If someone or some group, who is in the position to do so, decided they wanted to cause great harm to many people then they could.
The possibilities are there, I'm just concerned who would sound the alarm if, say, the government decided to carry out a program of genocide? Its not like the US govt hasn't supported genocidal governments elsewhere in the world, so what would stop it from happening here? I dont think its possible to have a kind of moral separation on an issue like genocide. Meaning, you can't say that it would be okay to commit mass murder on the people of east timor, but not on americans...that logic doesn't follow.
That's my thought exactly, with regards to using this technology to transfer data over fiber. As humans we do not require an extremely fast refresh rate in order to simulate movement, many computer monitors run at 60Hz.
But, when you're transferring information at broadband speeds you need to be able to pump out that data at a rate that could overwhelm the artificial muscle. I am not claiming to know much about this technology, but like others have said, I have my doubts as to how fast it is capable of oscillating.
After all is said and done though, it is a brilliant concept that will hopefully lead to some beautifully vibrant displays at a reduced cost. I can, although, envision one issue relating to this technology and that is if, say, a display relies on a single light source that could potentially burn out then the costs of replacing that bulb might be high. I'll give 2 examples, (1) projector bulbs, (2) LCD Backlights... Its not like they haven't done it before.
My only suspicion is they design them to burn-out on purpose in order to achieve residual income. Standard light bulbs illustrate this perfectly. Some of the earliest light bulbs ever made are still running. There are light bulbs that have been running for 100 years and still going strong, so why can't manufacturers produce that level of quality today? Because they don't want to.
Yeah, I love how they're now modifying our food sources. I mean, its no secret they've been pumping beef with hormones and anti-biotics for some time now, but I have a real problem with them genetically modifying agricultural products that the public has no control over. It would be possible for some organization bent on reducing the world population to genetically modify our food sources so the population gradually dies off.
Now take a look at viruses...anyone who reads about the latest ideas in science will know that gene therapy researchers are looking at ways of using viruses to deliver genetic information. Therefore, dousing our food with viral agents can potentially allow for some very bad things to happen. I think most will agree, its better to remove the temptation or the ability to cause great harm to those who might do so by preventing the enabling condition in the first place.
It is important for the people of a free democratic society to keep those in-check who feel entitled to the power they have been granted. Unfortuantely, this day in age we have been so brainwashed and propagandized by the government-media complex (aka government & corporations) that we allow them do to whatever they want at our expense.
I heard, and of course I cannot prove any of this, that neil armstrong saw space ships up there and even discussed it with people at some nasa convention years later. Others claim nasa officials mentioned how every single mission was followed closely or at a distance by UFOs. I am honestly in the camp that believes they did go to the moon...
The argument as to why they continued with successive missions was they were so committed that no amount of PR or propaganda could convince the american people that the reasons for not going back were reasonable. And telling the truth about aliens was not an option, then or now.
I dont believe or disbelieve this account because there is no way to prove or disprove it... maybe history will show itself someday.
Yah, I know. when i wrote it my formatting was nice and readable, but I accidently had it set on HTML formatting and not plain old text..so it all streamed together. I wish there was a way to edit once you've posted.
And regarding your correction...I would read my post once more...I did say they were from england.
I agree that the intimidation-factor preceeded 9/11, I have thought that since high school, and I was actually one of the good kids/non trouble-makers. Before 9/11 I never heard my Dad, who's always been a supporter of law-enforcement, say he sometimes feels like he's doing something wrong even though he knows he's not breaking the law, while in the presence of the police.
I was listening to a lecutre by noam chomsky that I had downloaded off the internet and he was mentioning how some elite refer to public opinion as "the great beast." They know once the beast gets out of their cage they're in for some trouble. So their goal is to not only control public opinion using propaganda of the mass media, but also assult us economically and psychologically and/or physically (ie police intimidation).
I also agree that we cannot make concessions for the police because they are expected to be held to a higher standard of moral conduct; their position of power requires it.
I dont care if they're investigating charles manson, his constitutional rights should not be restricted because the police "feel" for the victim's family. What if the suspect turns out to be innocent, but in the course of the investigation, before he is exonerated, the man's rights are ignored? Who is at fault? Does it not matter if his rights are voilated if he turns out to be guilty?
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"
When I read the first article about that man who was arrested because his home surveillance system had recorded a police officer who came to his home to speak to him I was fairly disturbed. It is no secret that our constant "legal" state of national emergency, that we have lived under for decades, has pretty much suspended the constitution. The laws passed following 9/11 took things that much further to where we are now. A man has the right to film his own property and anyone who passes onto it, so why was he arrested and charged with wiretapping because of the police's dislike of him?
The thing I dont understand is how can the police allow themselves to be so propagandized and "programmed" to the point at which they no longer enforce the liberties granted to us under the constitution. I have read internal FBI memos that have been leaked and they discuss how the agents should be on the look out for different types of terrorist groups and they list certain characteristics of each. They characterize people who speak of their "constitutional rights" as being trouble makers. Am I the only one who see something wrong with this?
Then again, I guess for most people it is easier to buy into the whole "less liberty/freedom = more protection against terrorists." I hear it all the time.
Yes, those big bad arab-muslim terrorists are going to kill all americans...just after they get done killing each other in iraq. I'm not sure if you all have read the papers yet, but the media is reporting how iraq is on the verge of a major civil war...if it hasn't begun already.
All i'm saying is this police oppression is nothing more than an extension of the post-9/11 mindset of tyrannical militarism and unreasonable punishment. This is just like the story a few days ago about the three 12 yr old children in england who were arrested and booked for breaking dead branches off trees so they could build a treehouse. What ever happened to the police protecting the people? I have heard more and more, from young and and old alike, that even though they are doing nothing wrong they still feel like they are guilty of something while in the presence of the police. I just dont see why they feel the need to be so intimidating and accusatory.
Considering the direction the "war on terror" allied countries (US, UK, AU, etc, etc.) are headed in terms of domestic policy this shouldn't be surprising.
I mean, the UK is the most surveilled nation on the planet which, to most, I assume, is unacceptable. Right? Most people would rather not have cameras watching them everywhere they go. Following that logic it should be safe to assume that the government is unreasonable in their assertion of total surveillance. Therefore, why would you expect the police, who are a part of that mechanism, to be reasonable also?
One of the commonly viewed attributes of a free and democratic society is a non-intrusive government who's responsibility is the protection of the citizens. The citizens from which the government gets its power. Also, it is the responsibility of the citizens to distrust the government and correct its unacceptable actions.
One might argue, "well, these cameras ARE for our protection." My respons would be, "Maybe so, but if you look at history the tendency of government is always to overstep the boundaries it has been given. If you allow the government to have sweeping authority and unparallelled power of information gathering without any checks or balances that protect the citizens from that machine, then the oppression of the people will be soon to follow.
The united states is no different, I have witnessed over the past year or two the installation of video cameras on almost every major intersection in every city of california. Moreover, I have personally observed the obvious absence of these cameras in wealthy areas through which I have driven. In the US the assumed cause is obvious (9/11, patriot act, dept homeland security, etc) but what is the reason in the UK, and what was the catalyst?
Back to my point, what has brought us to this point where kids who make their way to a "wooded" area in order find material to build a treehouse, end up in jail? The article clearly said they were intentionally trying to break off "dead limbs." This tells me they were consiously trying NOT to be destructive and were consciously trying not to harm a living tree. When I was a kid a police officer would have told me to go home, but now I'd get arrested!!!
This just seems to be congruent with today's way of thinking...why can't they allow children to be who they really are? KIDS!
If I were the parent I would be pissed off too, they police have no right to take DNA samples and fingerprints. The sad part is the police are so propagandized and indoctrinated into this way of thinking they would be just fine with their own children being arrested and booked for petty misconduct.
At least there is enough outrage from people on this topic that tells me not everyone has been brainwashed...yet
How can I be wrong about my own personal experience?
"...it seems as though most people I have come in contact with..."
Although, I'm sure you're right about most of the females in Entropia really being dudes.
I play entropia universe and it seems as though most people I have come in contact with stick with their natural gender identity. I also found out that one female avatar was actually a dude and everyone I know in-game thought it was creepy. Then again it is way more economical in entropia to be female because clothing and armor is much cheaper. So if i were to ever create a female avatar I wouldn't be running around with a frity name like daisy-sunshine, but instead I'd go for something more macho as to not deceive anyone.
No, money is not at the root of the power, it is a byproduct. The real power of the ruling elite is in their ability to control the minds of the public. To sell a version of history and values that ensures the continuation of their rule. They attain their power through the manipulation of the masses by using the modern mass media, aka propaganda. We have been so propagandized, so programmed, so indoctrinated throughout the course of our lives that we cannot see the slavery and control that has been held over us.
It is a very startling and awakening process to remove yourself from that mode of thinking. Believe me, I have experienced it and now i see the whole world as fake and embroiled with the lies we have been sold. I see that the U.S. actually has such a large population of people more devoted to their country and national identity than to their God. A country whose power, according to the declaration of independence, is endowed by our creator. Essentially, its saying that the government does recognizses a higher authority from which it gains its power; an authority higher than the state itself.
Since the patriot act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security we have seen the liberties and rights we have enjoyed for so many years legally negated. Whether the government actually exercises their new legal authority is less of a matter of if but more of a matter of when, if it hasn't already.
A system that recognizes no authority higher than itself, denies civil liberties, has totalitarian power over its population, and wages war without the consent of the governed can be described in one word: FASCIST. Why do I choose fascism over the many other systems of governance that could fit that description? Well, its easy. In the house of representatives, behind where the speaker of the house resides is a large wall with an american flag hanging upon it. On either side of the flag you will see two roman Fasci, as seen HERE, the fasci is the symbol of world fascism, of a one world government aka a new world order. The direction in which the United States is headed.
The governing elite have all but completely taken control over the minds and therefore bodies of the masses that one cannot help but feel a sense of hopelessness about the state of affairs.
Take 9/11 for example, there is such an overwhelming mountain of evidence that does not coincide with the official story, yet most Americans have never been introduced to it nor do they even want to know of it in the first place. It is so unimaginable to them that their country could be less than the picture of virtue that they envision. An ethical person who is truly informed citizen, will see through the falsities of what they're being told and break free of the prison they have been born into in order to aid in the escape of their bretheren from this prison of the mind.
My suggestion is to read as much as possible about the opinions and views of people who do not conform with the status quo. You do not have to agree with them, but you will find that there are elements of truth in what they say. Currently, I am reading the communist manifesto, although I do not agree with its solutions to the problems of the current system I espeically find the first section rather insightful in defining it; that is, the current system.
The clearer picture you can attain of the world, the more able you will be to see its corruption.
What an amazing song, those are timeless lyrics. They are as valid today as they were when he wrote the song. I love the part when he says:
"How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you Even Jesus would never Forgive what you do"
There is no doubt that right there he is speaking from the heart.
I think you guys are making some wrong assumptions: 1) Your vote actually contributes to deciding who becomes president. 2) The democratic process is still valid in this country.
I am a registered republican and voted for Bush in 2000, but I am convinced that he illegally won both the 2000 and 2004 elections. If anyone was to spend some time researching it they'd come to the same conclusion.
Secondly, we are witnessing the convergence of government and corporations. The majority of the politicians, ie. the corrupt ones, are either bought off by the special interests (aka corporations) or in fact belong to one( ie. Cheney & Halliburton).
The people no longer decide who becomes president, the media do. Not only are we not given the chioce to hear about candidates from non-democrat/republican parties, but the two Dem. & Rep candidates are painted in such a rosey light with no real journalistic investigating being reported on the respective candidates. Remeber in 2000 when Fox called the election in Bush's favor without actually having adequate and correct data? Do you remember hearing on the news about the multitudes of people who hadn't made it to the polls yet deciding not to vote because the election had already been decided?
I mean, of course the entire blame cannot be put on the media, those voters are idiots...but it definitely illustrates how easy it is for the media to manipulate the public if they so desired.
I would like to comment on the disenfranchised black voters in florida that everyone was talking about....You probably didn't know this, but the reason there was such a problem in those presincts who's residents were largely minority was because of how the voting machines were deliberately configured.
On the bottom of the voting machine there is a switch that can put it into one of two modes: one will spit back any faulty ballots, the second keeps and discards them. In the non-minority presincts the machines were set to spit the ballot back, allowing the voter to correct a mistake. Yet in the largely minority populated presincts, or those presincts in which the average voter is expected to vote Democrat, the machines were set to discard the ballot without notifying the voter of a mistake.
It is clear that a new page has turned in american history, where the powers that be have decided it is time to choose the presidents instead of elect them. Therefore, they present the illusion of a free and fair election but manipulate the process in such a way that they chosen one comes away as the victor.
Did you know that Bush and Kerry are distant cousins? Did you know they were in the same fraternity (skull and bones) at the same college and only a few years apart? Do your homework on the skull and bones and you'll realize that the 2004 election was an inside job. Kerry expected not to win because the men behind the scenes, the ones who pull the strings made a decision and bush was meant to be in washington for 4 more years.
And i leave you with one final thought from President Woodrow Wilson: "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. -Woodrow Wilson in The New Freedom, 1914
This is nothing more than a concerted effort to control information and your freedom to use the internet. Since the neo-cons took power during the regan era they have facilitated the consolidation of various media outlets into the hands of a few wealthy individuals and conglomerates. This effectively put the media corporations in control of the politicians, during the last presidential election politicians spent more than $1 Billion on campaign ads. We have come to a point where the media decides who gets elected and who doesn't. On election day 2000 rupert murdoch, the owner of fox, went into the studio and commanded the news team to call the election for Bush before all the results were in; thus fox was the first network to call in Bush's favor. If you do a little research on murdoch you'll find he's a faithful neocon, on Wikipedia he reportedly "has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan...Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections."
My point is they have already taken control of the traditional media with the corporate cronies, now they plan on cracking down on our ability to communicate publicly over the net any ideas that might be considered 'subversive.' Obviously, stopping piracy is a far cry from infringing on freedom of speech, but who knows what far-reaching effects this might have. And mark my words, this is one step of many towards an end that might not appear like an orwellian police state, but it'll be just as bad. Their goal is to control our minds, leaving us blissfully oppressed.
To begin with, you Anonymous Coward, your use of the word CULT is meant in a sarcastic and demeaning way, and you're therefore attempting to label all religions as cultic in order to negate their value and relevance. You do this because you are attempting to pronounce your own personal beliefs and marginalize religion. I find it all too common now a days for atheists to take that superiorist attitude and look down upon us all too ignorant and feeble-minded idiots who believe in a higher order, a spiritual realm.
That said, and using Christianity as an example, I would like to point out that no Christian knows for sure when the events of the End Times will begin; not in march, not in 2012, and not in 2300. The Bible states that the rapture will come "like a thief in the night," and nobody knows the time of Christ's return. Many generations throughout history have thought the rapture will come during their lifetime, and of course, none have been correct.
I think why you have a lot of people saying the end times are near is because there are way too many conditions being set in place that coincide with Biblical and non-Biblical Prophecy. One prophet named St. Malachy wrote down in the 11th century his papal prophecies and stopped in detail with our current pope. He only vaguely mentions one more, peter of rome, who will be a martyr and the last elected pope. At least, until now, he has been eerily accurate, it will not take much more time to find out if he was correct. Benedict is pretty old and may not last too much longer.
The Non-Biblical prophecy of the Mayans says that the end of our current age will be around 2012, some scholars think that when you account for the inaccuracies of our calendar the Mayan 2012 might actually land on our 2006!
Even if you look at current events it seems like things are becoming more unstable and the United States is threatened by a looming great depression (reference: look up petroeuro). The dominance of the dollar is weakening and in order to maintain its dominance the Bush administration is trying to prolong the inevitable by resorting to war and aggression. There is no way a country can exist solely on a war economy, but that is what has been happening since WWII. The collapse of the American Empire will only lead to the rise of the European Union as the world's leading power and ultimately the much prophesized one-world-government. Of course, some of what I have just said is hearsay and speculation, but it is hard to deny that there are a lot of signs pointing to that outcome.
Now, once there is a Unified world government under the leadership of a single individual, he might prove to be malevolent and require the allegiance of all who serve him. The "Mark of the Beast" will be his way of purging those who might stand in his way and threaten his authority, we're talking about the Christians. His "Mark" will most likely be some sort of technology that can interface with computers, presumably this technology will contain the numbers "666" signifying the wearer's allegiance to this leader or even the leader's ownership over them. Those who refuse to wear the chip that, in some way, contain the number "666" will, at first, not be allowed to participate in normal commerce and functioning within mainstream society will be all but impossible. Then it will escalate and full scale persecution will commence on those who refuse the "Mark". You can almost look at it as a reverse of what happened during Nazi Germany and the Jews, the Jews were forced to wear the star of David as a way to set this minority apart from the rest of German society. The only difference is that this new designation system will be displayed in an opposite manner of the Nazi's system. Everyone has the choice to accept the mark, but those who choose not to are instead choosing martyrdom and sacrifice.
It is difficult for even the staunchest atheist to deny the possibility of a future like this.
I think it is way too easy for atheists to call names saying Christians are "cra
The referenced article clearly makes a law like this seem completely illogical.
What if someone wanted to burn a bunch of digital camera pics onto a cd and give them to a friend, are they to be punished for the deeds of others? In America we call that taxation without representation.
If they levied a 5 or 10 percent tax, I think people would grumble and complain, but eventually accept it. Whereas, this proposed tax might incite a reactionary response and possibly make criminals out of people who would otherwise be law-abiding citizens.
This sounds really familiar, I saw this in a movie (was it minority repot?). This guy had a desk and when he moved this paperweight-looking stone across his desk it moved the opened windows on the display that were below the surface of his glass desk.
Now, I would assume that soon all products will have built-in rfid tags, such as a coffee cup, and people will be able to place their coffee cup on the table and it would be sensed as a coffee cup by the computer. I can also imagine you'll soon be able to retrofit old items with rfid tags that you can even put through the dishwasher.
This would lead me to conclude that a coffee table display could concievably contain an rfid sensor, combined with touch-screen functionality, the software would be able to determine that it is an object and not a human command.
Alternatively, if the rfid tag is not a direction they plan on taking I'm sure they could come up with some kind of embedded image recognition software that would visually determine that it is an object and not a person touching the screen...but who knows..
Re:Meh... Color me unimpressed.
on
Flexible Body Armor
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Well said, no need for me to write a comment... You've already expressed my point well enough.
So in other words... Ditto!
Well said you Anonymous Coward, I feel the same way about the whole looming "New World Order," "police state" thing we're headed for. Unfortunately, this whole implantable Identification is going to be just how the antichrist weeds out all the defiant christians. Those who do not submit to the "mark of the beast" will be martyred. I believe if this is to happen within our lifetime it will occur in less than a few decades, maybe even one decade.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, you can't stand the thought of someone becoming president with hair that bad! But it still doesn't justify you being a Clinton shill.
Well that pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly... or as I like to put it "you can't polish a turd." I didn't go see it because it looked like a stupid-ass movie... and hollywood wonders why they're losing sales. Same with the RIAA...You weren't losing money because of P2P downloads, you're distributing shit...therefore you lose sales. I can put my ass in a tupperware bowl and get the same thing for free. Well at least that's why I quit buying CDs. I mean, back in the 70's there were greatly talented bands like led zepplin, van halen, pink floyd, doobie brothers, CCR...the list goes on. Now a days we have black dudes going "YO YO YO" and white dudes going "AAAAARRRRRRGH!" ... That's not music, that's crap. But if I had to choose today between who has more talent, hip-hop or rock, I'd choose the hip-hop scene because at least they're creating some phat beats; they just need to work on the vocals a bit.
Rock in 2006, on the other hand, is just lame. You dont see awesome and talented musicians in these 'shit' bands like steve howe. The best talent out there is probably audioslave and even they suck.
Same goes with movies, most the crap that comes out is not worth the $10.50. Now if it were $5 then i'd be more inclined to go see more films at the movies because if it sux then oh well it was five bucks. But if the movie sux and its 10.50...well hell, that's dinner at a restaurant.
I guess what it really comes down to is people like to actually get something worth having for their money.
My opinion on fluoride is that it's a poison.
Yes they did, so the story goes, they took extensive footage of these craft but was immediately classified upon return to earth.
No, its okay... I cried myself to sleep only once...no worries.
you guys are missing my point... I was merely trying to point out that there is a lot of potential to create great harm. If someone or some group, who is in the position to do so, decided they wanted to cause great harm to many people then they could. The possibilities are there, I'm just concerned who would sound the alarm if, say, the government decided to carry out a program of genocide? Its not like the US govt hasn't supported genocidal governments elsewhere in the world, so what would stop it from happening here? I dont think its possible to have a kind of moral separation on an issue like genocide. Meaning, you can't say that it would be okay to commit mass murder on the people of east timor, but not on americans...that logic doesn't follow.
That's my thought exactly, with regards to using this technology to transfer data over fiber. As humans we do not require an extremely fast refresh rate in order to simulate movement, many computer monitors run at 60Hz.
But, when you're transferring information at broadband speeds you need to be able to pump out that data at a rate that could overwhelm the artificial muscle. I am not claiming to know much about this technology, but like others have said, I have my doubts as to how fast it is capable of oscillating.
After all is said and done though, it is a brilliant concept that will hopefully lead to some beautifully vibrant displays at a reduced cost. I can, although, envision one issue relating to this technology and that is if, say, a display relies on a single light source that could potentially burn out then the costs of replacing that bulb might be high. I'll give 2 examples, (1) projector bulbs, (2) LCD Backlights... Its not like they haven't done it before.
My only suspicion is they design them to burn-out on purpose in order to achieve residual income. Standard light bulbs illustrate this perfectly. Some of the earliest light bulbs ever made are still running. There are light bulbs that have been running for 100 years and still going strong, so why can't manufacturers produce that level of quality today? Because they don't want to.
Yeah, I love how they're now modifying our food sources. I mean, its no secret they've been pumping beef with hormones and anti-biotics for some time now, but I have a real problem with them genetically modifying agricultural products that the public has no control over. It would be possible for some organization bent on reducing the world population to genetically modify our food sources so the population gradually dies off.
Now take a look at viruses...anyone who reads about the latest ideas in science will know that gene therapy researchers are looking at ways of using viruses to deliver genetic information. Therefore, dousing our food with viral agents can potentially allow for some very bad things to happen. I think most will agree, its better to remove the temptation or the ability to cause great harm to those who might do so by preventing the enabling condition in the first place.
It is important for the people of a free democratic society to keep those in-check who feel entitled to the power they have been granted. Unfortuantely, this day in age we have been so brainwashed and propagandized by the government-media complex (aka government & corporations) that we allow them do to whatever they want at our expense.
Distrust is your greatest ally.
I heard, and of course I cannot prove any of this, that neil armstrong saw space ships up there and even discussed it with people at some nasa convention years later. Others claim nasa officials mentioned how every single mission was followed closely or at a distance by UFOs. I am honestly in the camp that believes they did go to the moon... The argument as to why they continued with successive missions was they were so committed that no amount of PR or propaganda could convince the american people that the reasons for not going back were reasonable. And telling the truth about aliens was not an option, then or now. I dont believe or disbelieve this account because there is no way to prove or disprove it... maybe history will show itself someday.
Yes, that is why the NSA needs electricity, so they dont have to work in the dark.
Oh, wait... did I just say that? LOL
Yah, I know. when i wrote it my formatting was nice and readable, but I accidently had it set on HTML formatting and not plain old text..so it all streamed together. I wish there was a way to edit once you've posted.
And regarding your correction...I would read my post once more...I did say they were from england.
I agree that the intimidation-factor preceeded 9/11, I have thought that since high school, and I was actually one of the good kids/non trouble-makers. Before 9/11 I never heard my Dad, who's always been a supporter of law-enforcement, say he sometimes feels like he's doing something wrong even though he knows he's not breaking the law, while in the presence of the police.
I was listening to a lecutre by noam chomsky that I had downloaded off the internet and he was mentioning how some elite refer to public opinion as "the great beast." They know once the beast gets out of their cage they're in for some trouble. So their goal is to not only control public opinion using propaganda of the mass media, but also assult us economically and psychologically and/or physically (ie police intimidation).
I also agree that we cannot make concessions for the police because they are expected to be held to a higher standard of moral conduct; their position of power requires it.
I dont care if they're investigating charles manson, his constitutional rights should not be restricted because the police "feel" for the victim's family. What if the suspect turns out to be innocent, but in the course of the investigation, before he is exonerated, the man's rights are ignored? Who is at fault? Does it not matter if his rights are voilated if he turns out to be guilty?
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"
When I read the first article about that man who was arrested because his home surveillance system had recorded a police officer who came to his home to speak to him I was fairly disturbed. It is no secret that our constant "legal" state of national emergency, that we have lived under for decades, has pretty much suspended the constitution. The laws passed following 9/11 took things that much further to where we are now. A man has the right to film his own property and anyone who passes onto it, so why was he arrested and charged with wiretapping because of the police's dislike of him? The thing I dont understand is how can the police allow themselves to be so propagandized and "programmed" to the point at which they no longer enforce the liberties granted to us under the constitution. I have read internal FBI memos that have been leaked and they discuss how the agents should be on the look out for different types of terrorist groups and they list certain characteristics of each. They characterize people who speak of their "constitutional rights" as being trouble makers. Am I the only one who see something wrong with this? Then again, I guess for most people it is easier to buy into the whole "less liberty/freedom = more protection against terrorists." I hear it all the time. Yes, those big bad arab-muslim terrorists are going to kill all americans...just after they get done killing each other in iraq. I'm not sure if you all have read the papers yet, but the media is reporting how iraq is on the verge of a major civil war...if it hasn't begun already. All i'm saying is this police oppression is nothing more than an extension of the post-9/11 mindset of tyrannical militarism and unreasonable punishment. This is just like the story a few days ago about the three 12 yr old children in england who were arrested and booked for breaking dead branches off trees so they could build a treehouse. What ever happened to the police protecting the people? I have heard more and more, from young and and old alike, that even though they are doing nothing wrong they still feel like they are guilty of something while in the presence of the police. I just dont see why they feel the need to be so intimidating and accusatory.
Considering the direction the "war on terror" allied countries (US, UK, AU, etc, etc.) are headed in terms of domestic policy this shouldn't be surprising.
I mean, the UK is the most surveilled nation on the planet which, to most, I assume, is unacceptable. Right? Most people would rather not have cameras watching them everywhere they go. Following that logic it should be safe to assume that the government is unreasonable in their assertion of total surveillance. Therefore, why would you expect the police, who are a part of that mechanism, to be reasonable also?
One of the commonly viewed attributes of a free and democratic society is a non-intrusive government who's responsibility is the protection of the citizens. The citizens from which the government gets its power.
Also, it is the responsibility of the citizens to distrust the government and correct its unacceptable actions.
One might argue, "well, these cameras ARE for our protection."
My respons would be, "Maybe so, but if you look at history the tendency of government is always to overstep the boundaries it has been given. If you allow the government to have sweeping authority and unparallelled power of information gathering without any checks or balances that protect the citizens from that machine, then the oppression of the people will be soon to follow.
The united states is no different, I have witnessed over the past year or two the installation of video cameras on almost every major intersection in every city of california. Moreover, I have personally observed the obvious absence of these cameras in wealthy areas through which I have driven. In the US the assumed cause is obvious (9/11, patriot act, dept homeland security, etc) but what is the reason in the UK, and what was the catalyst?
Back to my point, what has brought us to this point where kids who make their way to a "wooded" area in order find material to build a treehouse, end up in jail? The article clearly said they were intentionally trying to break off "dead limbs." This tells me they were consiously trying NOT to be destructive and were consciously trying not to harm a living tree. When I was a kid a police officer would have told me to go home, but now I'd get arrested!!!
This just seems to be congruent with today's way of thinking...why can't they allow children to be who they really are? KIDS!
If I were the parent I would be pissed off too, they police have no right to take DNA samples and fingerprints. The sad part is the police are so propagandized and indoctrinated into this way of thinking they would be just fine with their own children being arrested and booked for petty misconduct.
At least there is enough outrage from people on this topic that tells me not everyone has been brainwashed...yet
How can I be wrong about my own personal experience? "...it seems as though most people I have come in contact with..." Although, I'm sure you're right about most of the females in Entropia really being dudes.
I play entropia universe and it seems as though most people I have come in contact with stick with their natural gender identity. I also found out that one female avatar was actually a dude and everyone I know in-game thought it was creepy. Then again it is way more economical in entropia to be female because clothing and armor is much cheaper. So if i were to ever create a female avatar I wouldn't be running around with a frity name like daisy-sunshine, but instead I'd go for something more macho as to not deceive anyone.
No, money is not at the root of the power, it is a byproduct. The real power of the ruling elite is in their ability to control the minds of the public. To sell a version of history and values that ensures the continuation of their rule. They attain their power through the manipulation of the masses by using the modern mass media, aka propaganda. We have been so propagandized, so programmed, so indoctrinated throughout the course of our lives that we cannot see the slavery and control that has been held over us.
It is a very startling and awakening process to remove yourself from that mode of thinking. Believe me, I have experienced it and now i see the whole world as fake and embroiled with the lies we have been sold. I see that the U.S. actually has such a large population of people more devoted to their country and national identity than to their God. A country whose power, according to the declaration of independence, is endowed by our creator. Essentially, its saying that the government does recognizses a higher authority from which it gains its power; an authority higher than the state itself.
Since the patriot act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security we have seen the liberties and rights we have enjoyed for so many years legally negated. Whether the government actually exercises their new legal authority is less of a matter of if but more of a matter of when, if it hasn't already.
A system that recognizes no authority higher than itself, denies civil liberties, has totalitarian power over its population, and wages war without the consent of the governed can be described in one word: FASCIST. Why do I choose fascism over the many other systems of governance that could fit that description? Well, its easy. In the house of representatives, behind where the speaker of the house resides is a large wall with an american flag hanging upon it. On either side of the flag you will see two roman Fasci, as seen HERE, the fasci is the symbol of world fascism, of a one world government aka a new world order. The direction in which the United States is headed.
The governing elite have all but completely taken control over the minds and therefore bodies of the masses that one cannot help but feel a sense of hopelessness about the state of affairs.
Take 9/11 for example, there is such an overwhelming mountain of evidence that does not coincide with the official story, yet most Americans have never been introduced to it nor do they even want to know of it in the first place. It is so unimaginable to them that their country could be less than the picture of virtue that they envision. An ethical person who is truly informed citizen, will see through the falsities of what they're being told and break free of the prison they have been born into in order to aid in the escape of their bretheren from this prison of the mind.
My suggestion is to read as much as possible about the opinions and views of people who do not conform with the status quo. You do not have to agree with them, but you will find that there are elements of truth in what they say. Currently, I am reading the communist manifesto, although I do not agree with its solutions to the problems of the current system I espeically find the first section rather insightful in defining it; that is, the current system.
The clearer picture you can attain of the world, the more able you will be to see its corruption.
What an amazing song, those are timeless lyrics. They are as valid today as they were when he wrote the song. I love the part when he says:
"How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do"
There is no doubt that right there he is speaking from the heart.
I think you guys are making some wrong assumptions:
1) Your vote actually contributes to deciding who becomes president.
2) The democratic process is still valid in this country.
I am a registered republican and voted for Bush in 2000, but I am convinced that he illegally won both the 2000 and 2004 elections. If anyone was to spend some time researching it they'd come to the same conclusion.
Secondly, we are witnessing the convergence of government and corporations. The majority of the politicians, ie. the corrupt ones, are either bought off by the special interests (aka corporations) or in fact belong to one( ie. Cheney & Halliburton).
The people no longer decide who becomes president, the media do. Not only are we not given the chioce to hear about candidates from non-democrat/republican parties, but the two Dem. & Rep candidates are painted in such a rosey light with no real journalistic investigating being reported on the respective candidates. Remeber in 2000 when Fox called the election in Bush's favor without actually having adequate and correct data? Do you remember hearing on the news about the multitudes of people who hadn't made it to the polls yet deciding not to vote because the election had already been decided?
I mean, of course the entire blame cannot be put on the media, those voters are idiots...but it definitely illustrates how easy it is for the media to manipulate the public if they so desired.
I would like to comment on the disenfranchised black voters in florida that everyone was talking about....You probably didn't know this, but the reason there was such a problem in those presincts who's residents were largely minority was because of how the voting machines were deliberately configured.
On the bottom of the voting machine there is a switch that can put it into one of two modes: one will spit back any faulty ballots, the second keeps and discards them.
In the non-minority presincts the machines were set to spit the ballot back, allowing the voter to correct a mistake. Yet in the largely minority populated presincts, or those presincts in which the average voter is expected to vote Democrat, the machines were set to discard the ballot without notifying the voter of a mistake.
It is clear that a new page has turned in american history, where the powers that be have decided it is time to choose the presidents instead of elect them. Therefore, they present the illusion of a free and fair election but manipulate the process in such a way that they chosen one comes away as the victor.
Did you know that Bush and Kerry are distant cousins? Did you know they were in the same fraternity (skull and bones) at the same college and only a few years apart? Do your homework on the skull and bones and you'll realize that the 2004 election was an inside job. Kerry expected not to win because the men behind the scenes, the ones who pull the strings made a decision and bush was meant to be in washington for 4 more years.
And i leave you with one final thought from President Woodrow Wilson:
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. -Woodrow Wilson in The New Freedom, 1914
This is nothing more than a concerted effort to control information and your freedom to use the internet. Since the neo-cons took power during the regan era they have facilitated the consolidation of various media outlets into the hands of a few wealthy individuals and conglomerates. This effectively put the media corporations in control of the politicians, during the last presidential election politicians spent more than $1 Billion on campaign ads. We have come to a point where the media decides who gets elected and who doesn't. On election day 2000 rupert murdoch, the owner of fox, went into the studio and commanded the news team to call the election for Bush before all the results were in; thus fox was the first network to call in Bush's favor. If you do a little research on murdoch you'll find he's a faithful neocon, on Wikipedia he reportedly "has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan...Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections." My point is they have already taken control of the traditional media with the corporate cronies, now they plan on cracking down on our ability to communicate publicly over the net any ideas that might be considered 'subversive.' Obviously, stopping piracy is a far cry from infringing on freedom of speech, but who knows what far-reaching effects this might have. And mark my words, this is one step of many towards an end that might not appear like an orwellian police state, but it'll be just as bad. Their goal is to control our minds, leaving us blissfully oppressed.
To begin with, you Anonymous Coward, your use of the word CULT is meant in a sarcastic and demeaning way, and you're therefore attempting to label all religions as cultic in order to negate their value and relevance. You do this because you are attempting to pronounce your own personal beliefs and marginalize religion. I find it all too common now a days for atheists to take that superiorist attitude and look down upon us all too ignorant and feeble-minded idiots who believe in a higher order, a spiritual realm.
That said, and using Christianity as an example, I would like to point out that no Christian knows for sure when the events of the End Times will begin; not in march, not in 2012, and not in 2300. The Bible states that the rapture will come "like a thief in the night," and nobody knows the time of Christ's return. Many generations throughout history have thought the rapture will come during their lifetime, and of course, none have been correct.
I think why you have a lot of people saying the end times are near is because there are way too many conditions being set in place that coincide with Biblical and non-Biblical Prophecy. One prophet named St. Malachy wrote down in the 11th century his papal prophecies and stopped in detail with our current pope. He only vaguely mentions one more, peter of rome, who will be a martyr and the last elected pope. At least, until now, he has been eerily accurate, it will not take much more time to find out if he was correct. Benedict is pretty old and may not last too much longer.
The Non-Biblical prophecy of the Mayans says that the end of our current age will be around 2012, some scholars think that when you account for the inaccuracies of our calendar the Mayan 2012 might actually land on our 2006!
Even if you look at current events it seems like things are becoming more unstable and the United States is threatened by a looming great depression (reference: look up petroeuro). The dominance of the dollar is weakening and in order to maintain its dominance the Bush administration is trying to prolong the inevitable by resorting to war and aggression. There is no way a country can exist solely on a war economy, but that is what has been happening since WWII. The collapse of the American Empire will only lead to the rise of the European Union as the world's leading power and ultimately the much prophesized one-world-government. Of course, some of what I have just said is hearsay and speculation, but it is hard to deny that there are a lot of signs pointing to that outcome.
Now, once there is a Unified world government under the leadership of a single individual, he might prove to be malevolent and require the allegiance of all who serve him. The "Mark of the Beast" will be his way of purging those who might stand in his way and threaten his authority, we're talking about the Christians. His "Mark" will most likely be some sort of technology that can interface with computers, presumably this technology will contain the numbers "666" signifying the wearer's allegiance to this leader or even the leader's ownership over them. Those who refuse to wear the chip that, in some way, contain the number "666" will, at first, not be allowed to participate in normal commerce and functioning within mainstream society will be all but impossible. Then it will escalate and full scale persecution will commence on those who refuse the "Mark". You can almost look at it as a reverse of what happened during Nazi Germany and the Jews, the Jews were forced to wear the star of David as a way to set this minority apart from the rest of German society. The only difference is that this new designation system will be displayed in an opposite manner of the Nazi's system. Everyone has the choice to accept the mark, but those who choose not to are instead choosing martyrdom and sacrifice.
It is difficult for even the staunchest atheist to deny the possibility of a future like this.
I think it is way too easy for atheists to call names saying Christians are "cra
man, if I was canadian, I'd be pissed aboot this!
The referenced article clearly makes a law like this seem completely illogical.
What if someone wanted to burn a bunch of digital camera pics onto a cd and give them to a friend, are they to be punished for the deeds of others? In America we call that taxation without representation.
If they levied a 5 or 10 percent tax, I think people would grumble and complain, but eventually accept it. Whereas, this proposed tax might incite a reactionary response and possibly make criminals out of people who would otherwise be law-abiding citizens.
This sounds really familiar, I saw this in a movie (was it minority repot?). This guy had a desk and when he moved this paperweight-looking stone across his desk it moved the opened windows on the display that were below the surface of his glass desk.
Now, I would assume that soon all products will have built-in rfid tags, such as a coffee cup, and people will be able to place their coffee cup on the table and it would be sensed as a coffee cup by the computer. I can also imagine you'll soon be able to retrofit old items with rfid tags that you can even put through the dishwasher.
This would lead me to conclude that a coffee table display could concievably contain an rfid sensor, combined with touch-screen functionality, the software would be able to determine that it is an object and not a human command.
Alternatively, if the rfid tag is not a direction they plan on taking I'm sure they could come up with some kind of embedded image recognition software that would visually determine that it is an object and not a person touching the screen...but who knows..
Well said, no need for me to write a comment... You've already expressed my point well enough. So in other words... Ditto!
Well said you Anonymous Coward, I feel the same way about the whole looming "New World Order," "police state" thing we're headed for. Unfortunately, this whole implantable Identification is going to be just how the antichrist weeds out all the defiant christians. Those who do not submit to the "mark of the beast" will be martyred. I believe if this is to happen within our lifetime it will occur in less than a few decades, maybe even one decade.