Breivik had convinced himself (well really, it seemed that a small group of far right wing whackos of which Breivik was the most extreme member) that socialists and leftists had sold out Europe and that the only way to save the situation was to commit an atrocity against innocents which would, somehow, spark a holy war in which Christian Europe threw out all the Muslims. I would also reference Timothy McVeigh, another individual who managed to desensitize himself and allow himself to be able to commit mass murder.
Again, I don't know whether this is related to the alleged "empathy switch" in sociopaths or not. It's also possible that Breivik and McVeigh were themselves sociopaths who masked their pathologies under the guise of extremist beliefs. But I tend to believe that, whatever their psychological issues, they were not sociopaths. In both cases they seemed to genuinely believe what they were doing was for the greater good (in McVeigh's case, it was in part revenge for the Branch Dividian disaster in Wako, suggesting that he empathized with Koresh and his followers a great deal).
I think this is mainly to do with tribalism, which is a very very ancient set of instincts (we share them to a large degree with the other apes, just look at how chimp tribes behave towards each other). People are built to fit themselves into kin groups, which works pretty well when you're talking about relative small societies of a hundred or a few thousand individuals. Essentially it is an "us vs. them", "friend vs. stranger" recognition system.
If someone is seen as a stranger, they are a potential threat, and actions can be taken against them that one would not take against a member of one's own kin group or society (this is why murder of a relative or close friend is still seen in most societies as a much higher crime than murder of a stranger or an acquaintance). Through the ages demagogues have been able to manipulate this basic tribal instinct to group people based upon relationship to further all sorts of atrocities. Whether it's persecution, exile, slavery or genocide, once you've convinced a populace that your desired target group is somehow alien, you can convince that populace to do almost anything.
It's as the old story goes (and time for the Godwin); Hitler convinced an entire nation made of up people who adhered to a religion whose basic tenet was "love thy brother" that persecution and ultimately murder of millions of members of ethnic groups (Jews and Roma in particular) was perfectly fine, and yet even Hitler was a vegetarian who loved his dogs.
Whether this "empathy switch" in psychopaths is related to that I don't know. Obviously even in normal people there is a way to trigger the dehumanizing of groups if they can be convinced that they are alien threats. Mind you even look like genocides like the Jewish Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, there was long standing prejudice and mistrust against the targeted group, so it's not as if appeared out of nowhere.
Yes, providing you can guarantee the security of the private keys, if you're concerned about government(s) spying on your communications, that is definitely the way to go.
For our organization, due to the highly confidential nature of some of our data and communications, I am about to build a machine that will have no network connection whatsoever that will hold the CA and private keys, and will use it to produce public keys for our VPN, mail server, web services and the like. The server will be behind lock and key and locked down with LUKS, and the keys for that will be held in a separate location. Obviously nothing is 100%, but it's going to physical access to the server and to the private keys to compromise the system.
The Internet may have exacerbated the problem, but really it was always there. I remember hearing some pretty distorted accounts of sex and procreation starting in kindergarten and some nonsense ideas even being perpetrated well into my adolescence. The solution to such problems is always education.
We know the Internet has some wild stuff on it, but rather than make-believing that we can stop any technically competent kid from seeing it, we should prepare our children for what they may encounter. This is no different than the age-old "don't take candy from strangers" routine that countless generations of parents have drilled into their kids, because, at the end of the day, they still have to function in the outside world, even before they hit the age of majority.
And that's where Internet filters are in fact worse than unimpeded access to the Internet. They are yet another form of security theater. A government gets to proclaim that it's saving the children from distorted views of sex, even as savvy kids figure ways around the filters. Parents imagine that the Internet has now been sanitized, when in fact the whole thing is a fabrication.
I have absolutely no complaints with mine. Love the thing. Yeah, it would be nice if you could plunk an SD card into it or properly access USB drives, but I've got other ways to move data on and off it, so it's a very very small inconvenience. I love the thing myself.
You are aware that, a couple of centuries ago, anything but the missionary position was regarded as sinful. A few centuries ago, the idea of cunnilingus, fellatio, heterosexual anal intercourse, mutual masturbation and the like would have been viewed as distorted and vile.
You're quite right. This isn't an issue reserved for the Right. There are no lack of people on the Left who want porn banned as well. What I've concluded is that some people are just reactionaries, and while reactionaries may affiliate themselves with particular political ideologies, at the end of the day, what they demand is usually the same. Reactionarism is almost an ideology unto its own.
The British ISPs have been telling the UK government for years now, through all the iterations of this "we must block x to save the children" nonsense that it is unworkable. The politicians by now are perfectly well aware how futile this is, but there are always a certain class of voters who will cast their ballot for Canute based upon the notion that he can stop the tides.
Unless the UK is prepared to start doing deep packet inspection and blocking VPNs, external proxies, anonymizing networks and the like, all this is going to be is either some pathetic cookie-based on/off flag or nearly as pathetic DNS block. It will be totally useless, fuck up other chunks of the Internet, and those with the capacity to read a two or three paragraph faq will happily be viewing their porn in a minute. Yes, it will inconvenience some, it will also create a false sense of security, and Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"
Do you think anyone in Australia who wants to to view things the Australian government is afraid of can't get it running in a couple of minutes? These things are a joke, unless, as I said, Western governments want to start building China and Iran -like Great Firewalls.
Seems confusing, until you consider the founder is a drug addled maniac who probably gets into fisticuffs with himself just trying to brush his teeth in the morning.
We're sorry. Though we would like to make intelligent films with discernible plots and dialogue that approaches that of conversation between two reasonably sentient beings, but our in depth research via focus groups and the latest in neural sciences indicates that most of the movie public have forebrains about the size of your average planarian's. Meaningful plots and good dialogue really don't register with these people, but lots of bright flashing lights and glittering objects do manage to pierce the veil of dullness and we find that people tend to flock to such films, much as mindless leeches sniff out warm blood. What we didn't consider is that such small, crude amphibious-level brains get easily desensitized by such films, and too many of them in a short period oversaturate their limited neurons.
Further market research indicates that a possible cure to this is more RomComs, particularly ones with Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. This invokes the basic reproductive instincts in women with planarian-sized cerebrums, and while it does little to stimulate males of this type, generally speaking the instinctual understanding that taking your dull-witted girlfriend to a Hudson-McConaughey film will greatly increase the likelihood of getting laid should reverse the trend of poor box office showings.
Scientists aren't cherry picking data to make absurd claims like "temperature isn't rising". They are not dishonest cretins posting pre-canned bullshit anonymously on Internet forums.
Hmmm, almost every climatologist out there says AGW is real, but an AC on/. who thinks that plastic pollution is a-okay because the source material was in the ground says it's a complete joke. Further, he then makes some claim about "libtards", as if science that he doesn't like can be neatly categorized as being "leftist".
Slashdot Mirror
That's one helluva guy you're citing there. Breivik's pagan alterego.
Just a minute, I'll check for that on my iPhone.
Breivik had convinced himself (well really, it seemed that a small group of far right wing whackos of which Breivik was the most extreme member) that socialists and leftists had sold out Europe and that the only way to save the situation was to commit an atrocity against innocents which would, somehow, spark a holy war in which Christian Europe threw out all the Muslims. I would also reference Timothy McVeigh, another individual who managed to desensitize himself and allow himself to be able to commit mass murder.
Again, I don't know whether this is related to the alleged "empathy switch" in sociopaths or not. It's also possible that Breivik and McVeigh were themselves sociopaths who masked their pathologies under the guise of extremist beliefs. But I tend to believe that, whatever their psychological issues, they were not sociopaths. In both cases they seemed to genuinely believe what they were doing was for the greater good (in McVeigh's case, it was in part revenge for the Branch Dividian disaster in Wako, suggesting that he empathized with Koresh and his followers a great deal).
I think this is mainly to do with tribalism, which is a very very ancient set of instincts (we share them to a large degree with the other apes, just look at how chimp tribes behave towards each other). People are built to fit themselves into kin groups, which works pretty well when you're talking about relative small societies of a hundred or a few thousand individuals. Essentially it is an "us vs. them", "friend vs. stranger" recognition system.
If someone is seen as a stranger, they are a potential threat, and actions can be taken against them that one would not take against a member of one's own kin group or society (this is why murder of a relative or close friend is still seen in most societies as a much higher crime than murder of a stranger or an acquaintance). Through the ages demagogues have been able to manipulate this basic tribal instinct to group people based upon relationship to further all sorts of atrocities. Whether it's persecution, exile, slavery or genocide, once you've convinced a populace that your desired target group is somehow alien, you can convince that populace to do almost anything.
It's as the old story goes (and time for the Godwin); Hitler convinced an entire nation made of up people who adhered to a religion whose basic tenet was "love thy brother" that persecution and ultimately murder of millions of members of ethnic groups (Jews and Roma in particular) was perfectly fine, and yet even Hitler was a vegetarian who loved his dogs.
Whether this "empathy switch" in psychopaths is related to that I don't know. Obviously even in normal people there is a way to trigger the dehumanizing of groups if they can be convinced that they are alien threats. Mind you even look like genocides like the Jewish Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, there was long standing prejudice and mistrust against the targeted group, so it's not as if appeared out of nowhere.
Indeed. We seem to have entire professions; like the legal system and upper management, dedicated to sociopathic individuals.
Yes, providing you can guarantee the security of the private keys, if you're concerned about government(s) spying on your communications, that is definitely the way to go.
For our organization, due to the highly confidential nature of some of our data and communications, I am about to build a machine that will have no network connection whatsoever that will hold the CA and private keys, and will use it to produce public keys for our VPN, mail server, web services and the like. The server will be behind lock and key and locked down with LUKS, and the keys for that will be held in a separate location. Obviously nothing is 100%, but it's going to physical access to the server and to the private keys to compromise the system.
The Internet may have exacerbated the problem, but really it was always there. I remember hearing some pretty distorted accounts of sex and procreation starting in kindergarten and some nonsense ideas even being perpetrated well into my adolescence. The solution to such problems is always education.
We know the Internet has some wild stuff on it, but rather than make-believing that we can stop any technically competent kid from seeing it, we should prepare our children for what they may encounter. This is no different than the age-old "don't take candy from strangers" routine that countless generations of parents have drilled into their kids, because, at the end of the day, they still have to function in the outside world, even before they hit the age of majority.
And that's where Internet filters are in fact worse than unimpeded access to the Internet. They are yet another form of security theater. A government gets to proclaim that it's saving the children from distorted views of sex, even as savvy kids figure ways around the filters. Parents imagine that the Internet has now been sanitized, when in fact the whole thing is a fabrication.
I have absolutely no complaints with mine. Love the thing. Yeah, it would be nice if you could plunk an SD card into it or properly access USB drives, but I've got other ways to move data on and off it, so it's a very very small inconvenience. I love the thing myself.
I was going to say the same. My Nexus 7 has the option. Never turned it on, but nevertheless it is there.
You are aware that, a couple of centuries ago, anything but the missionary position was regarded as sinful. A few centuries ago, the idea of cunnilingus, fellatio, heterosexual anal intercourse, mutual masturbation and the like would have been viewed as distorted and vile.
You're quite right. This isn't an issue reserved for the Right. There are no lack of people on the Left who want porn banned as well. What I've concluded is that some people are just reactionaries, and while reactionaries may affiliate themselves with particular political ideologies, at the end of the day, what they demand is usually the same. Reactionarism is almost an ideology unto its own.
The British ISPs have been telling the UK government for years now, through all the iterations of this "we must block x to save the children" nonsense that it is unworkable. The politicians by now are perfectly well aware how futile this is, but there are always a certain class of voters who will cast their ballot for Canute based upon the notion that he can stop the tides.
Unless the UK is prepared to start doing deep packet inspection and blocking VPNs, external proxies, anonymizing networks and the like, all this is going to be is either some pathetic cookie-based on/off flag or nearly as pathetic DNS block. It will be totally useless, fuck up other chunks of the Internet, and those with the capacity to read a two or three paragraph faq will happily be viewing their porn in a minute. Yes, it will inconvenience some, it will also create a false sense of security, and Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"
Do you think anyone in Australia who wants to to view things the Australian government is afraid of can't get it running in a couple of minutes? These things are a joke, unless, as I said, Western governments want to start building China and Iran -like Great Firewalls.
New study proves only more peanuts can cure peanut cancer!
Now add in the various costs, from lost productivity to tech support costs, of shitty AV software like McAfee.
Seems confusing, until you consider the founder is a drug addled maniac who probably gets into fisticuffs with himself just trying to brush his teeth in the morning.
We're sorry. Though we would like to make intelligent films with discernible plots and dialogue that approaches that of conversation between two reasonably sentient beings, but our in depth research via focus groups and the latest in neural sciences indicates that most of the movie public have forebrains about the size of your average planarian's. Meaningful plots and good dialogue really don't register with these people, but lots of bright flashing lights and glittering objects do manage to pierce the veil of dullness and we find that people tend to flock to such films, much as mindless leeches sniff out warm blood. What we didn't consider is that such small, crude amphibious-level brains get easily desensitized by such films, and too many of them in a short period oversaturate their limited neurons.
Further market research indicates that a possible cure to this is more RomComs, particularly ones with Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. This invokes the basic reproductive instincts in women with planarian-sized cerebrums, and while it does little to stimulate males of this type, generally speaking the instinctual understanding that taking your dull-witted girlfriend to a Hudson-McConaughey film will greatly increase the likelihood of getting laid should reverse the trend of poor box office showings.
Signed,
The Management
Hollywood, CA
And why are the chances so small?
Cherry picking data to "prove" your point only proves how dishonest you are. What you're doing isn't science, it's simply ideological-driven polemics.
I'll pick the overwhelming majority of climatologists state. Just like how I accept what the majority of biologists say about evolution.
Scientists aren't cherry picking data to make absurd claims like "temperature isn't rising". They are not dishonest cretins posting pre-canned bullshit anonymously on Internet forums.
So ignore Al Gore and read what the actual scientists are saying.
Fine, let's call them "people who deny AGW based upon misinformation, ignorance and lies".
Hmmm, almost every climatologist out there says AGW is real, but an AC on /. who thinks that plastic pollution is a-okay because the source material was in the ground says it's a complete joke. Further, he then makes some claim about "libtards", as if science that he doesn't like can be neatly categorized as being "leftist".
Who will I pick?
Of course life can adapt. Even humans can adapt. The question is how much will it cost to adapt, and how many will die who cannot.