An app to sneak past the great firewall? There are thousands. I'd start by suggesting TOR, which is designed partly for the purpose and has no problems with it.
Actually that's incorrect. While it might seem that way, it's an impression that doesn't hold up to real world scrutiny. For instance studies have shown that rape victims are less likely to violently resist when the rapist has a knife compared to when he has a gun. Researchers believe that a knife is more primal, more personal, which makes it more scary when you are up close and personal.
I'm not saying a gun isn't a great big show-off thing, it surely is, but that's all about things "over there" that needs a few extra holes in them. Things that are up close and personal would be much more impressed and intimated by the knife.
A more interesting question from my point of view, why can't you? Why do so many people object to the concept that only intelligent people should be allowed to make the sort of decisions that have long lasting effects on the world and our communities? Why isn't there a basic competence test required to take a seat of power? Just some basic stuff, logic, reason, history, ethics, that sort of thing. Nothing complicated, you'd think. Nothing outrageous... but apparently clearly elitist thinking.
So okay, I'll admit you can't judge a person for being stupid. But you can judge him for being stupid and not recognizing it, or being stupid and still wanting a place of intellectual power, or being stupid while wielding power, or any other number of things.
Exactly my point, this system makes you look like a higher value target. The lower level crooks might pass you by, but the higher levels won't - and if you use this system around a regular neighbourhood you'll stick out like a sore thumb, making it all the more obvious.
As for good home security, home automation is pretty nice, and an amusing geeky project. Use those radio controlled outlets or something similar, control the whole thing from some project board like an arduino or such, and you can go on vacation knowing that your home will still look somewhat lived in, lights turning on and off during the right times (but randomly, according to whatever pattern matches your routines best) and so on. I saw a guy who had electric shades in his windows, they could be controlled manually or go up and down automatically as the sun shifted across the sky. When he went on vacation his home automation system automatically shut the shades in his bedroom for an hour in the afternoon every day or two, since that's what he usually did when he was home for the afternoon and having a nap.
I think looking like someone is still at home is a lot more valuable security wise than a laser show... but then if I bought that laser show system it would be the most expensive item I owned, so I have a feeling it would be the first thing they nicked.
Thank you for the tip, if I ever end up living on "my own property" I'll be sure to check up if that's the case. In Sweden however a lot of people - most I believe - live in apartments, which means they don't have to set foot on my property to ring my doorbell.
Hmm, yes, what could one country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" possibly have to do with another country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" through the use of RIPA?
I think the main clue is in the title: Glad we still don't allow that here. If that's not link enough for you then my statement that giving these types of organizations more power is a bad thing cements the link.
I think they'd have trouble doing that in Sweden, although I know it's been suggested. The reason it would be hard is because if everyone ends up having to pay then it's legally a tax, not a license, and private organizations are not allowed to gather taxes... and taxes can never be earmarked for one particular thing, so they couldn't get the entire sum for their business, they'd have to take whatever chunk the government budgeted for them, regardless of how much less that is than what was collected.
As for the blank media fee, yeah, we have that too, and it's ridiculous. But I think that's more connected to the whole music/film industry corruption rather than the TV license question.
At one time they rang the door when I wasn't home. My girlfriend answered and said that we had a TV. Now apparently they aren't allowed to ask people who don't live there, but back then they rarely asked if the person that answered the door was a resident. Anyway, I got a bill, and tried to refute it. They refused. I ended up "admitting guilt" and then telling them I got rid of the TV because I didn't want to pay more, which meant I had to pay for only the week or soi I allegedly had it.
Haha, good story right, I got away with lying to them? No. Actually not. I didn't have a TV.
I did have a large monitor connected to my HTPC however, that for all intents and purposes looked like a TV. My girlfriend wasn't tech savvy enough to know the difference... The lack of tuner was the only "obvious" thing setting them apart, and that of course wasn't obvious since we never wanted to watch OTA programming in the first place.
Well, that experience can actually happen here in Sweden as well - if you live rurally. The licensing agency here actually pays a commision on any cheaters caught, and anyone can apply to be one of their checkers, so in any city there are plenty of regular people who apply and get a list of local people "who aren't paying" and then have a financial motivation to find these non-payers out as cheaters.
But even so, why is the burden of proof on you? As in why do you have to so to say "apply for an exemption"? That's wrong on so many levels, and harks back to that whole guilty until proven innocent thing. If you're from Sweden then I can pretty much guarantee that the only reason that they don't harass you further for it is because they don't have the means to do so. Maybe you don't fall into what they call a high risk demographic, maybe you don't live around any controllers, maybe you just haven't made any purchases of media equipment or such (which can be reported to them voluntarily by the store selling it.) They don't have the resources to go after everyone, clearly...
Giving them those resources would be a horrible thing.
I haven't paid my TV license since I moved away from home some 10-15 years ago. Most of that time I haven't actually had a TV either, I get my media online these days... but the people who come asking why I haven't paid my license are rarely so easily convinced.
"Hello, I'm from 'Radiotjänst', we notice you haven't paid your TV license." "I don't have a TV." "Really? Can I look?" "I don't have a TV, I don't have a TV card for my computer, or any other item that is listed as requiring me to pay your license." "Are you sure, it covers quite a lot. If I can come in and have a quick look..." "I'm quite sure, and no, you can't come in."
Then they'll usually call a few weeks later, because the inspector reports that behaviour as suspicious, so they call to ask. And then sometimes I get a letter as well, making sure I know that I seem to have 'forgotten' to pay my license.
Agencies like that are the basic reason why things like RIPA is a very, very bad thing. Guilty until proven innocent, and harassed until you confess whether actually guilty or not. Organizations with that mindset is what caused the inquisition, so we really need to keep them under check rather than giving them more power.
The point with this kind of security is to look like a harder target than the guy next to you. But if you look like you take security REALLY seriously in a neighbourhood of people who are more normal, then all of a sudden you've painted a bullseye on yourself instead. Then you'd attract the kind of criminal who would be smart enough to walk by one night and throw a newspaper through the lasers on their way past, and notice the significant lack of any reaction.
So basically if you're living in a normal neighbourhood, you'd need something LESS FLASHY. And if you live in a neighbourhood where this kind of thing is standard, then you'd need something that looked even flashier. But then if you live in a neighbourhood where this kind of thing is standard, you probably need and can afford the real deal.
I'm not Bourne, and savvy or not disappearing isn't going to happen for "normal" people if forces of that magnitude is out to get you. Sure, I could take the long shot, just pack my family up and go on "vacation" abroad, but odds are that would just flag me and I wouldn't get out of the country. So, never mind that. Do the right thing. Surrender.
Now, the problem with that is that I don't trust the government as far as I can throw them. And that's not very far, in case you wondered. So how do I make sure I get treated fairly? I don't. Quite the opposite. I just make sure it's as public as possible. I write down a full account of exactly what I witnessed, and what has happened since, everything I know objectively, everything I observed subjectively, and all my fears and worries. I use tor to post this in a couple of places on the hidden web, I e-mail it to as many journalists as I can dig up in half an hour on google, I e-mail it to blogs, to the EFF, to Amnesty, to the UN, to the Government, to FBI, to the library of congress, to various agencies and so on. The latter ones because here in Sweden a lot of those places have very strict rules to register every incoming communication with a number and all, some places even make those records public, which means it would be all the much harder to censor.
If any reporters indicate any interest I will spend my time with them after that, lounging around the newspaper offices or whatnot. The "bad guys" are welcome to come and arrest me there, or take me away from there for questioning. It would take a lot of work to silence an entire cadre of reporters efficiently without a leak, so I'd feel reasonably certain that the news of my removal would leak out. With that even if nobody believed my original assertions, suddenly they'd become the front page news all over the world.
So basically by following those actions I'd make the only good choice for the government to withdraw silently. If there is no further indications of wrong-doing, I'd just come off as a regular nutcase, a conspiracy theorist, and nobody would listen to a word I said. If they come after me, it becomes a big deal and everyone will know I hit a nerve with what I said, which will bring unwanted attention.
Of course nobody expects them to be rational, but it's still the best bet I've got. It'll at least give me a chance to get released once the media frenzy hits the magic level.
But I'll probably still get "caught". Then I guess I'll get waterboarded. Fun fun fun, in the sun sun sun.
Yeah, my main problem with my laptop is actually the opposite... the keyboard is so flexible with mushy keys that even if _I_ feel I hit the key, the computer doesn't always notice. I presume because the entire keyboard flexes with my push putting the actual key-switch further away from the key top. Or some such. Learning to type really really softly is more of a challenge than it should be, but hey, I've been typing on heavy mechanical switches for 20+ years.
I'm fairly sure touch screen keyboards have been tried or announced and failed, or is about to come, or some such. I've heard it before anyway. As for the rest of that stuff, that's impossible.
Oh, the long version? Right. Voice recognition adapts to the way you speak by two factors, one, you speak, two, you correct it when it gets it wrong. This doesn't work for keyboards, because we expect the keys to be in certain places. They can't just one day go "oh you use these keys a lot, let us move them closer for you!" because the user would have to re-learn the keyboard over and over again. Basically with voice recognition the user doesn't change the way they speak (much), but with keyboards the user has to change the way they type with every change to the input device that's done.
So, sorry, it's one of those things that sound really neat, but has no conceivable use-case in the real world. If you think people would accept this sort of thing, try buying a bunch of different keyboards with different layouts and then just grab a friend, and switch his keyboard out. Every few hours or days. Dvorak, Qwerty, Qwertz, different languages, shapes, models.
See how long it takes before he vows to piss on your grave rather than ever buy a keyboard you've made to mimic this behaviour.
Well, the people who push the bills are the lawmakers, so it would cure that. As for the reviewers, that's supposed to be a court of law like I said. If those accept bribes then it's a much more obvious problem. A politician can accept a lot of "campaigning contributions" and so on with little trouble, but a judge who suddenly received large payments of any kind from any people other than their employer - the courts - would be easy to bring under question. So if your country actually has a trouble with bribed judges, complete transparency would help get rid of that.
First off, you assume america here. I don't, maybe because I'm not american, maybe because the article is about Germany, maybe because the world is bigger than your little pond. However, repealing laws are indeed a normal part of the duties of the legal system in a country, or perhaps of the government in some cases. Either way it's an investigation that is handled on the highest levels of the legal system, since it's a decision that affects all lower parts of the system.
And yes, putting a democratically elected government at the mercy of a small circle of appointed-for-life whatevers is indeed a really bad idea, and either the system in place or the suggestion would have to have safeguards built in or be changed to account for such an unbalanced system. However in arguing that the government shouldn't be at the mercy of the courts you are basically saying that they are above the law, and unaccountable for their actions in running the country. That's ludicrous and there is absolutely nothing democratic about it. Accountability is one of the most basic ways to keep people in high positions honest. After all a politician is not only supposed to act by the letter of the law, but rather in the best interest of the people. All the people, not only those that voted for them.
Yes. Requiring that the people in charge knows what they are talking about would limit who could be put in charge to intelligent and rational people, which is called elitism, and that's not socially acceptable. So it is indeed too much to ask.
However it is not too much to ask, in my opinion, that the drafter of any bills are held personally responsible for it. If say this bill passes and company A is suddenly pressing Google for X millions in compensation, Google should be able to sue the person drafting the bill, prompting a legal review by the highest legal court in the country. If the bill/law is found to be bad OR the drafter is found to have drafted it specifically to benefit the interests of companies/people they are personally involved with (like insider trading, except for law) then the law should be repealed, and the drafter should be held personally responsible for the X millions in compensation that Google would owe company A for the time the law was in effect.
That should make most politicians think twice about what they put their name on.
This is not detaining people with whom they disagree, this is detaining people who make actual statements about starting a revolution. I'm pretty sure starting a revolution is a pretty serious criminal activity over there, it sure is around here. Of course these days it labels him a "terrorist" while before he would only have been an extremist or some such. But anyway, it's not people with whom the government disagree, it's people they have reasonable concerns are planning an actual crime.
As for how they found out, well, someone earlier in the comments said his wall was indeed open for everyone. I didn't check it out, but even if it was set to private that doesn't matter. Facebook has previously mentioned in interviews that they scan messages automatically for evidence of pedophiles going after kids or trading child pornography, so they can report to the authorities. This could just as easily be a case of facebook notifying the proper authorities when this guy went over the line.
And no, it's not a free speech issue. Telling people Americans are stupid would be an example of free speech, telling people that all Americans should be killed would be an example of free speech, telling people that they should kill all Americans would be an example of incitement, and telling people I'm going to kill all Americans would be a good way to get a long and inhospitable vacation.
Well, since you're the one who invades namelessly without an actual argument beyond your own self-image, you'd be the closest match so far. On the other hand Hitler was an excellent conversationalist, and your displayed lack of language skills would make it an insult to Hitler to compare the two of you.
So I suppose that falls to me then. I'm the Hitler of the conversation.
Well, you seem to assume that they don't expect the father to stay around. It's true that in some cases this is the case... Then again some of these edge cases seem to be deluded enough that they expect the reluctant father to actually stick around. A shotgun wedding tactic, so to say.
Thank you, I do quite agree. On the flip side I'm a total asshole, to some people, so while his argument was incorrect (the kind of women I date clearly don't think I'm an asshole, nor do my friends), his general statement holds some validity as to the opinion of the community as a whole.
But then that's exactly what you are saying, that the community in general has a twisted image and thus those that live different lives, while accepted and well liked in their own contexts, become assholes in the big picture.
Well, either way, I'm an infertile asshole... and I didn't have to shrink my testes to do it.
Well, the "joke" about girls half my age was mainly based on the fact that girls half my age, while legal around here, are way too young to be thinking of kids. Sure, teenagers get pregnant at times (although rarely around these parts of the world, since we have proper sex education in our schools), but it's usually due to either stupidity or failure of birth control methods: not due to actively pursuing it. Girls up to their late teens/early 20s are less likely to be ready to settle down for life and create a family, so that's usually not on the top of their mind even if they do at some point wish to procreate. They are not likely to intentionally fuck with birth control methods, so generally I could trust them if they said they were on birth control, and more importantly they'd usually not only expect to use a condom but prefer it.
As for the minority of younger girls that actually DO want to start a family right away, well they are just like the older ones with the same affliction scared away by the fact that I'm voluntarily infertile.
So I don't think my attitude is optimistic, and even if it was it's a moot point - the vasectomy means I don't have to worry about that regardless of the age of the woman I'm dating.
Well, of course our experience would differ - we are very different people clearly, with very different search criteria. Let's say you look for girls of type U. Since girls of type T and V are similar, you'll dismiss all other girls, but you'll end up having to look closer at girls in the group TUV in order to find the ones that match best - the Us. Meanwhile I look for girls of type maybe I'm looking for type V, but since type U and W have similar characteristics, I dismiss all other girls and end up looking closer at girls in the group UVW. And thus there are girls I look at that you never meet, and girls you look at that I never meet. Because we dismiss them offhand due to other more immediate reasons.
Of course more likely you look for girls in the group ABC and I look in the group XYZ, but that's largely another story. Even in my subset these women are not the majority, but since they WILL lie and deceive to get their goals, they are over-represented in the girls that get past the first checks and balances.
So getting a vasectomy for me was a simple choice and an easy solution. I don't want to procreate, and telling girls that up front had no result. But telling them up front that I've had a vasectomy and CAN NOT procreate, well that is a new check that weeds out any of these crazies quickly, efficiently, and decisively.
And you can call me an ass-hole all you want, I still say Tacitus is overrated.:P
Only find that type? I think you are overlooking the obvious here. When I find one that isn't, I keep her. Hence why I've spent about three quarters of my adult life in long term (2+ years) relationships. When I find a woman who genuinly didn't want to have kids, and who matched me well in most other ways, I even married her. Five years later, and we got divorced... She wanted more big city life, I prefer the countryside. These things happen. Now I'm dating again, and oh look... Girls my age (30+) either have kids or are pretty desperate... with a few exceptions. So far I haven't found one that matches me in any other ways.
So if you want to find out how much of an asshole I am in person, you're welcome to come over so I can laugh at your face. And bring your Agricola, it is better as toilet paper than it is as a book anyway.
I researched the availability of male birth control after the first time I ended up in the bedroom with a woman who was all "Oh you don't want kids, that's okay, I'm on the pill. No need to use a condom. NO. NO CONDOM! OKAY THEN, BUT USE THIS CONDOM, NOT YOURS! YOURS IS TOO UNBROKEN!"
Sounds silly, right? Apparently it's not that rare, and the older I get (or rather the older the girls I date get), the more common it gets.
So, I had to choose between exclusively dating girls half my age, find a way to put birth control under MY control since I don't want to procreate, or well, just live with it. A lot of guys choose the latter, which I suppose is why a lot of guys become fathers once their luck runs out. I'm not that kind of stupid.
So I just went with the other two options. Girls half my age are usually quite happy when they hear I've had a vasectomy, while a lot of older girls suddenly remember they need to wash their hair this saturday. Sunday. Every day. Every possible day I could ever meet them on, ever. They will have the cleanest hair ever, but they're not risking having sex with an infertile guy. Even though they supposedly are okay with that I don't want kids.
And women are surprised that we're confused by their behaviours...
Anyway I probably would have gone with the vasectomy anyway, but it would have been awesome to have a pill for when I was too young to legally do so. (25 here in Sweden.) So I really do hope that this thing takes off... This time. In difference of all the other ones, that have been in development for decades, and even undergoing human trials.
On the flip side that whole shrinking testes thing is a bit of a marketing problem if it persists in guys. Not for me per se, but generally guys seem to put a lot of stock in their nuts. I mean it's even made the language: "You've got balls." Having smaller balls makes you less of a man. No logic about that either... So most guys wouldn't buy this pill, even if it did work.
And men are surprised that women are confused by their behaviours...
Slashdot Mirror
An app to sneak past the great firewall? There are thousands. I'd start by suggesting TOR, which is designed partly for the purpose and has no problems with it.
Actually that's incorrect. While it might seem that way, it's an impression that doesn't hold up to real world scrutiny. For instance studies have shown that rape victims are less likely to violently resist when the rapist has a knife compared to when he has a gun. Researchers believe that a knife is more primal, more personal, which makes it more scary when you are up close and personal.
I'm not saying a gun isn't a great big show-off thing, it surely is, but that's all about things "over there" that needs a few extra holes in them. Things that are up close and personal would be much more impressed and intimated by the knife.
A more interesting question from my point of view, why can't you? Why do so many people object to the concept that only intelligent people should be allowed to make the sort of decisions that have long lasting effects on the world and our communities? Why isn't there a basic competence test required to take a seat of power? Just some basic stuff, logic, reason, history, ethics, that sort of thing. Nothing complicated, you'd think. Nothing outrageous... but apparently clearly elitist thinking.
So okay, I'll admit you can't judge a person for being stupid. But you can judge him for being stupid and not recognizing it, or being stupid and still wanting a place of intellectual power, or being stupid while wielding power, or any other number of things.
Exactly my point, this system makes you look like a higher value target. The lower level crooks might pass you by, but the higher levels won't - and if you use this system around a regular neighbourhood you'll stick out like a sore thumb, making it all the more obvious.
As for good home security, home automation is pretty nice, and an amusing geeky project. Use those radio controlled outlets or something similar, control the whole thing from some project board like an arduino or such, and you can go on vacation knowing that your home will still look somewhat lived in, lights turning on and off during the right times (but randomly, according to whatever pattern matches your routines best) and so on. I saw a guy who had electric shades in his windows, they could be controlled manually or go up and down automatically as the sun shifted across the sky. When he went on vacation his home automation system automatically shut the shades in his bedroom for an hour in the afternoon every day or two, since that's what he usually did when he was home for the afternoon and having a nap.
I think looking like someone is still at home is a lot more valuable security wise than a laser show... but then if I bought that laser show system it would be the most expensive item I owned, so I have a feeling it would be the first thing they nicked.
Thank you for the tip, if I ever end up living on "my own property" I'll be sure to check up if that's the case. In Sweden however a lot of people - most I believe - live in apartments, which means they don't have to set foot on my property to ring my doorbell.
Hmm, yes, what could one country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" possibly have to do with another country's TV-license organization harassing their "clients" through the use of RIPA?
I think the main clue is in the title: Glad we still don't allow that here. If that's not link enough for you then my statement that giving these types of organizations more power is a bad thing cements the link.
I think they'd have trouble doing that in Sweden, although I know it's been suggested. The reason it would be hard is because if everyone ends up having to pay then it's legally a tax, not a license, and private organizations are not allowed to gather taxes... and taxes can never be earmarked for one particular thing, so they couldn't get the entire sum for their business, they'd have to take whatever chunk the government budgeted for them, regardless of how much less that is than what was collected.
As for the blank media fee, yeah, we have that too, and it's ridiculous. But I think that's more connected to the whole music/film industry corruption rather than the TV license question.
At one time they rang the door when I wasn't home. My girlfriend answered and said that we had a TV. Now apparently they aren't allowed to ask people who don't live there, but back then they rarely asked if the person that answered the door was a resident. Anyway, I got a bill, and tried to refute it. They refused. I ended up "admitting guilt" and then telling them I got rid of the TV because I didn't want to pay more, which meant I had to pay for only the week or soi I allegedly had it.
Haha, good story right, I got away with lying to them? No. Actually not. I didn't have a TV.
I did have a large monitor connected to my HTPC however, that for all intents and purposes looked like a TV. My girlfriend wasn't tech savvy enough to know the difference... The lack of tuner was the only "obvious" thing setting them apart, and that of course wasn't obvious since we never wanted to watch OTA programming in the first place.
Well, that experience can actually happen here in Sweden as well - if you live rurally. The licensing agency here actually pays a commision on any cheaters caught, and anyone can apply to be one of their checkers, so in any city there are plenty of regular people who apply and get a list of local people "who aren't paying" and then have a financial motivation to find these non-payers out as cheaters.
But even so, why is the burden of proof on you? As in why do you have to so to say "apply for an exemption"? That's wrong on so many levels, and harks back to that whole guilty until proven innocent thing. If you're from Sweden then I can pretty much guarantee that the only reason that they don't harass you further for it is because they don't have the means to do so. Maybe you don't fall into what they call a high risk demographic, maybe you don't live around any controllers, maybe you just haven't made any purchases of media equipment or such (which can be reported to them voluntarily by the store selling it.) They don't have the resources to go after everyone, clearly...
Giving them those resources would be a horrible thing.
I haven't paid my TV license since I moved away from home some 10-15 years ago. Most of that time I haven't actually had a TV either, I get my media online these days... but the people who come asking why I haven't paid my license are rarely so easily convinced.
"Hello, I'm from 'Radiotjänst', we notice you haven't paid your TV license."
"I don't have a TV."
"Really? Can I look?"
"I don't have a TV, I don't have a TV card for my computer, or any other item that is listed as requiring me to pay your license."
"Are you sure, it covers quite a lot. If I can come in and have a quick look..."
"I'm quite sure, and no, you can't come in."
Then they'll usually call a few weeks later, because the inspector reports that behaviour as suspicious, so they call to ask. And then sometimes I get a letter as well, making sure I know that I seem to have 'forgotten' to pay my license.
Agencies like that are the basic reason why things like RIPA is a very, very bad thing. Guilty until proven innocent, and harassed until you confess whether actually guilty or not. Organizations with that mindset is what caused the inquisition, so we really need to keep them under check rather than giving them more power.
The point with this kind of security is to look like a harder target than the guy next to you. But if you look like you take security REALLY seriously in a neighbourhood of people who are more normal, then all of a sudden you've painted a bullseye on yourself instead. Then you'd attract the kind of criminal who would be smart enough to walk by one night and throw a newspaper through the lasers on their way past, and notice the significant lack of any reaction.
So basically if you're living in a normal neighbourhood, you'd need something LESS FLASHY. And if you live in a neighbourhood where this kind of thing is standard, then you'd need something that looked even flashier. But then if you live in a neighbourhood where this kind of thing is standard, you probably need and can afford the real deal.
I'm not Bourne, and savvy or not disappearing isn't going to happen for "normal" people if forces of that magnitude is out to get you. Sure, I could take the long shot, just pack my family up and go on "vacation" abroad, but odds are that would just flag me and I wouldn't get out of the country. So, never mind that. Do the right thing. Surrender.
Now, the problem with that is that I don't trust the government as far as I can throw them. And that's not very far, in case you wondered. So how do I make sure I get treated fairly? I don't. Quite the opposite. I just make sure it's as public as possible. I write down a full account of exactly what I witnessed, and what has happened since, everything I know objectively, everything I observed subjectively, and all my fears and worries. I use tor to post this in a couple of places on the hidden web, I e-mail it to as many journalists as I can dig up in half an hour on google, I e-mail it to blogs, to the EFF, to Amnesty, to the UN, to the Government, to FBI, to the library of congress, to various agencies and so on. The latter ones because here in Sweden a lot of those places have very strict rules to register every incoming communication with a number and all, some places even make those records public, which means it would be all the much harder to censor.
If any reporters indicate any interest I will spend my time with them after that, lounging around the newspaper offices or whatnot. The "bad guys" are welcome to come and arrest me there, or take me away from there for questioning. It would take a lot of work to silence an entire cadre of reporters efficiently without a leak, so I'd feel reasonably certain that the news of my removal would leak out. With that even if nobody believed my original assertions, suddenly they'd become the front page news all over the world.
So basically by following those actions I'd make the only good choice for the government to withdraw silently. If there is no further indications of wrong-doing, I'd just come off as a regular nutcase, a conspiracy theorist, and nobody would listen to a word I said. If they come after me, it becomes a big deal and everyone will know I hit a nerve with what I said, which will bring unwanted attention.
Of course nobody expects them to be rational, but it's still the best bet I've got. It'll at least give me a chance to get released once the media frenzy hits the magic level.
But I'll probably still get "caught". Then I guess I'll get waterboarded. Fun fun fun, in the sun sun sun.
Yeah, my main problem with my laptop is actually the opposite... the keyboard is so flexible with mushy keys that even if _I_ feel I hit the key, the computer doesn't always notice. I presume because the entire keyboard flexes with my push putting the actual key-switch further away from the key top. Or some such. Learning to type really really softly is more of a challenge than it should be, but hey, I've been typing on heavy mechanical switches for 20+ years.
I'm fairly sure touch screen keyboards have been tried or announced and failed, or is about to come, or some such. I've heard it before anyway. As for the rest of that stuff, that's impossible.
Oh, the long version? Right. Voice recognition adapts to the way you speak by two factors, one, you speak, two, you correct it when it gets it wrong. This doesn't work for keyboards, because we expect the keys to be in certain places. They can't just one day go "oh you use these keys a lot, let us move them closer for you!" because the user would have to re-learn the keyboard over and over again. Basically with voice recognition the user doesn't change the way they speak (much), but with keyboards the user has to change the way they type with every change to the input device that's done.
So, sorry, it's one of those things that sound really neat, but has no conceivable use-case in the real world. If you think people would accept this sort of thing, try buying a bunch of different keyboards with different layouts and then just grab a friend, and switch his keyboard out. Every few hours or days. Dvorak, Qwerty, Qwertz, different languages, shapes, models.
See how long it takes before he vows to piss on your grave rather than ever buy a keyboard you've made to mimic this behaviour.
Well, the people who push the bills are the lawmakers, so it would cure that. As for the reviewers, that's supposed to be a court of law like I said. If those accept bribes then it's a much more obvious problem. A politician can accept a lot of "campaigning contributions" and so on with little trouble, but a judge who suddenly received large payments of any kind from any people other than their employer - the courts - would be easy to bring under question. So if your country actually has a trouble with bribed judges, complete transparency would help get rid of that.
First off, you assume america here. I don't, maybe because I'm not american, maybe because the article is about Germany, maybe because the world is bigger than your little pond. However, repealing laws are indeed a normal part of the duties of the legal system in a country, or perhaps of the government in some cases. Either way it's an investigation that is handled on the highest levels of the legal system, since it's a decision that affects all lower parts of the system.
And yes, putting a democratically elected government at the mercy of a small circle of appointed-for-life whatevers is indeed a really bad idea, and either the system in place or the suggestion would have to have safeguards built in or be changed to account for such an unbalanced system. However in arguing that the government shouldn't be at the mercy of the courts you are basically saying that they are above the law, and unaccountable for their actions in running the country. That's ludicrous and there is absolutely nothing democratic about it. Accountability is one of the most basic ways to keep people in high positions honest. After all a politician is not only supposed to act by the letter of the law, but rather in the best interest of the people. All the people, not only those that voted for them.
Yes. Requiring that the people in charge knows what they are talking about would limit who could be put in charge to intelligent and rational people, which is called elitism, and that's not socially acceptable. So it is indeed too much to ask.
However it is not too much to ask, in my opinion, that the drafter of any bills are held personally responsible for it. If say this bill passes and company A is suddenly pressing Google for X millions in compensation, Google should be able to sue the person drafting the bill, prompting a legal review by the highest legal court in the country. If the bill/law is found to be bad OR the drafter is found to have drafted it specifically to benefit the interests of companies/people they are personally involved with (like insider trading, except for law) then the law should be repealed, and the drafter should be held personally responsible for the X millions in compensation that Google would owe company A for the time the law was in effect.
That should make most politicians think twice about what they put their name on.
This is not detaining people with whom they disagree, this is detaining people who make actual statements about starting a revolution. I'm pretty sure starting a revolution is a pretty serious criminal activity over there, it sure is around here. Of course these days it labels him a "terrorist" while before he would only have been an extremist or some such. But anyway, it's not people with whom the government disagree, it's people they have reasonable concerns are planning an actual crime.
As for how they found out, well, someone earlier in the comments said his wall was indeed open for everyone. I didn't check it out, but even if it was set to private that doesn't matter. Facebook has previously mentioned in interviews that they scan messages automatically for evidence of pedophiles going after kids or trading child pornography, so they can report to the authorities. This could just as easily be a case of facebook notifying the proper authorities when this guy went over the line.
And no, it's not a free speech issue. Telling people Americans are stupid would be an example of free speech, telling people that all Americans should be killed would be an example of free speech, telling people that they should kill all Americans would be an example of incitement, and telling people I'm going to kill all Americans would be a good way to get a long and inhospitable vacation.
Well, since you're the one who invades namelessly without an actual argument beyond your own self-image, you'd be the closest match so far. On the other hand Hitler was an excellent conversationalist, and your displayed lack of language skills would make it an insult to Hitler to compare the two of you.
So I suppose that falls to me then. I'm the Hitler of the conversation.
Well, you seem to assume that they don't expect the father to stay around. It's true that in some cases this is the case... Then again some of these edge cases seem to be deluded enough that they expect the reluctant father to actually stick around. A shotgun wedding tactic, so to say.
Thank you, I do quite agree. On the flip side I'm a total asshole, to some people, so while his argument was incorrect (the kind of women I date clearly don't think I'm an asshole, nor do my friends), his general statement holds some validity as to the opinion of the community as a whole.
But then that's exactly what you are saying, that the community in general has a twisted image and thus those that live different lives, while accepted and well liked in their own contexts, become assholes in the big picture.
Well, either way, I'm an infertile asshole... and I didn't have to shrink my testes to do it.
Well, the "joke" about girls half my age was mainly based on the fact that girls half my age, while legal around here, are way too young to be thinking of kids. Sure, teenagers get pregnant at times (although rarely around these parts of the world, since we have proper sex education in our schools), but it's usually due to either stupidity or failure of birth control methods: not due to actively pursuing it. Girls up to their late teens/early 20s are less likely to be ready to settle down for life and create a family, so that's usually not on the top of their mind even if they do at some point wish to procreate. They are not likely to intentionally fuck with birth control methods, so generally I could trust them if they said they were on birth control, and more importantly they'd usually not only expect to use a condom but prefer it.
As for the minority of younger girls that actually DO want to start a family right away, well they are just like the older ones with the same affliction scared away by the fact that I'm voluntarily infertile.
So I don't think my attitude is optimistic, and even if it was it's a moot point - the vasectomy means I don't have to worry about that regardless of the age of the woman I'm dating.
Well, of course our experience would differ - we are very different people clearly, with very different search criteria. Let's say you look for girls of type U. Since girls of type T and V are similar, you'll dismiss all other girls, but you'll end up having to look closer at girls in the group TUV in order to find the ones that match best - the Us. Meanwhile I look for girls of type maybe I'm looking for type V, but since type U and W have similar characteristics, I dismiss all other girls and end up looking closer at girls in the group UVW. And thus there are girls I look at that you never meet, and girls you look at that I never meet. Because we dismiss them offhand due to other more immediate reasons.
Of course more likely you look for girls in the group ABC and I look in the group XYZ, but that's largely another story. Even in my subset these women are not the majority, but since they WILL lie and deceive to get their goals, they are over-represented in the girls that get past the first checks and balances.
So getting a vasectomy for me was a simple choice and an easy solution. I don't want to procreate, and telling girls that up front had no result. But telling them up front that I've had a vasectomy and CAN NOT procreate, well that is a new check that weeds out any of these crazies quickly, efficiently, and decisively.
And you can call me an ass-hole all you want, I still say Tacitus is overrated. :P
Only find that type? I think you are overlooking the obvious here. When I find one that isn't, I keep her. Hence why I've spent about three quarters of my adult life in long term (2+ years) relationships. When I find a woman who genuinly didn't want to have kids, and who matched me well in most other ways, I even married her. Five years later, and we got divorced... She wanted more big city life, I prefer the countryside. These things happen. Now I'm dating again, and oh look... Girls my age (30+) either have kids or are pretty desperate... with a few exceptions. So far I haven't found one that matches me in any other ways.
So if you want to find out how much of an asshole I am in person, you're welcome to come over so I can laugh at your face. And bring your Agricola, it is better as toilet paper than it is as a book anyway.
I researched the availability of male birth control after the first time I ended up in the bedroom with a woman who was all "Oh you don't want kids, that's okay, I'm on the pill. No need to use a condom. NO. NO CONDOM! OKAY THEN, BUT USE THIS CONDOM, NOT YOURS! YOURS IS TOO UNBROKEN!"
Sounds silly, right? Apparently it's not that rare, and the older I get (or rather the older the girls I date get), the more common it gets.
So, I had to choose between exclusively dating girls half my age, find a way to put birth control under MY control since I don't want to procreate, or well, just live with it. A lot of guys choose the latter, which I suppose is why a lot of guys become fathers once their luck runs out. I'm not that kind of stupid.
So I just went with the other two options. Girls half my age are usually quite happy when they hear I've had a vasectomy, while a lot of older girls suddenly remember they need to wash their hair this saturday. Sunday. Every day. Every possible day I could ever meet them on, ever. They will have the cleanest hair ever, but they're not risking having sex with an infertile guy. Even though they supposedly are okay with that I don't want kids.
And women are surprised that we're confused by their behaviours...
Anyway I probably would have gone with the vasectomy anyway, but it would have been awesome to have a pill for when I was too young to legally do so. (25 here in Sweden.) So I really do hope that this thing takes off... This time. In difference of all the other ones, that have been in development for decades, and even undergoing human trials.
On the flip side that whole shrinking testes thing is a bit of a marketing problem if it persists in guys. Not for me per se, but generally guys seem to put a lot of stock in their nuts. I mean it's even made the language: "You've got balls." Having smaller balls makes you less of a man. No logic about that either... So most guys wouldn't buy this pill, even if it did work.
And men are surprised that women are confused by their behaviours...