No, you don't have enough control to make someone angry, sad, or happy, because they're individuals not objects. You can affect someone's mood, but you don't make it and you can't control it. People can't trust society because society because society is not trustworthy, because it treats them like objects. The solution is not satisfying their urges, but allowing them to be free.
Sure I can. If I punch you in the face a few times you'll punch me back. That is proof I can make you angry or scared. Not to mention you can drug people, apply hypnosis, or seduce people. Yes you can influence someones mood easily.
What you cannot do is influence someones behavior so easily. Just because they feel a certain way it doesnt mean they cannot apply reasoning to their situation and decide what to do.
That said I agree with you that liberty is the point of society. It's what we work for. To live without liberty is no different than being in prison.
As for society treating them as objects, you can recognize that all human animate objects prefer to be happy. You can create a society that doesn't get in the way of the pursuit of happiness. It's like each object is on a road, and the laws being passed sometimes are direct roadblocks that cause them to drive in ways which are less predictable and more erratic because they aren't happy.
On top of that you have people using all kinds of drugs and medication because society sucks so bad. Lets just be real about it, most people are depressed because society legitimately sucks. Every year and every decade society tells you what you can't do, makes you work harder and harder, makes you sacrifice more, pay more taxes, gives you more risk and danger, don't break the law even though thousands of new laws are created all the time. So it's possible that a lot of people are going to be miserable in hell.
The example you gave is not about hate, it makes it illegal to incite violence whether the target is a social or ethnic group, or "people that work for BP", or "that guy over there".
Actually, your last example is not apt. There are already laws covering telling someone or a group to go kill a specific individual. Laws about inciting violence not against a specific person, but a social group, however, have not traditionally existed. Such laws have appeared more recently in response to individuals and groups who tell their followers to go "kill blacks" or "kill jews" or "kill faggots" or what have you. They are referred to as "hate speech" laws because they are about stopping a specific kind of hate speech that is likely to cause violence against some group by drumming up hate against that group. In fact, these type of "hate speech" laws are the most common, but because both individuals and the media don't differentiate when speaking about the laws, it all gets lumped together and people are confused about the issue. I don't know why you think hate speech laws only apply to ethnic minorities or something and that people can't hate "people that work for BP". Hate speech laws are about stopping speech that leads to violence against a group by inciting hate for that group. What the group is, is not the defining characteristic of hate speech.
so they wont say go kill them, they'll instead give a map, list of names and addresses, and racial information, and say they are pedophiles, criminals, "hate criminals" or whatever.
We will have nazi's and other haters talking in code because they don't want to be labeled a hate criminal. This only will make them smarter and harder to deal with.
If I say I don't like conservatives that could be interpreted as hate speech.
The easy way around this is to change the meaning of the words. So if I don't like conservatives I can say I ate preservatives. It doesn't make a goddamn difference because any speech can be interpreted as hate speech once code words are factored in.
It's better not to make those objects angry, sad, or upset because their behavior becomes unpredictable and uncontrollable. It's also just plain wrong to abuse an object by constantly beating on it, complaining about it, punishing it in all kinds of ways, taking away it's entertainment (porn), taking away its video games, taking away it's movies, taking away it's rock and rap music, taking away, taking away, taxing, taxing, taking, prison, removing, banning, restricting.
Then you wonder why those objects with feelings can't trust you anymore.
Beastiality has to be regulated because a dog or horse cannot give consent. Child porn has to be regulated because a child cannot give consent.
We don't have to regulate the pornography. We just have to make it illegal to have sex with a non-human animal or a child. It has nothing to do with regulating speech or regulating the porn. It's the creation of the porn that is the problem not the people who watch it.
They are not fascists. They are not like Hitler. They are the left but the authoritarian left. The authoritarian left leads to socialism of the kind that can result in secret prisons very much like what the Soviets had under the Communist regime. Once liberty is taken away you can't get it back without a fight.
So while the Democrats give you socialism and social programs, they take away your rights while they do it. Republicans just take away your rights and don't give you shit. I guess it's better to vote for the Democrats considering the options.
We haven't invaded Iran yet but we probably will. We will probably be in Iraq for longer than 100 years, especially if we invade Iran. We wont get rid of DADT. We wont legalize pot. We wont do anything except win the war and MAYBE just MAYBE fix healthcare.
So far Obama passed his healthcare bill. He passed a college loan bill(which doesn't go very far), but he and the congress in general never passes anything which increases liberty. There aren't enough libertarians on the left or the right.
The left likes to call libertarians "anarchists", even when the libertarians are socialists. The right likes to call libertarians the "fringe" or they get the leadership to sell out like Ron Paul has done and go along with supporting big oil.
There are not enough libertarians. There are too many crypto-fascists. They are some socialists but they are the Stalin/Soviet kind of socialist rather than the kind we need.
Our options are Authoritarian Socialism vs Crypto-Fascism.
Or are they both authoritarians who hate liberty? Maybe a combination of both?
As far as I'm concerned liberty is the basis of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" which could have been defined as the "pursuit of liberty" or the "pursuit of profit" which in other words is the pursuit of liberty.
To remove rights directly conflicts with an individuals ability to pursue happiness. You cannot be happy if you don't have any liberty. No you wont find many happy prisoners.
Of course it's the law around here. If it's not the law then who the hell is running this country? Does it run itself? Is it run by the Shadow government? Some director of some top secret agency?
Isn't ruling from the heart and not from the head exactly the sort of thing people rail against when it comes to Supreme Court nominees?
Following the text of the Constitution is not "reading from the heart". Regarding two rights that Ms. Kagen apparently takes issue with, the document plainly states that Congress shall make no law (1st amendment) and that the right shall not be infringed (2nd amendment).
Free speech is probably the most important right there is. If she doesn't respect free speech then imagine what she thinks of all our other rights?
We aren't talking about hate crimes. We aren't talking about men beating up their wives or neo nazi's killing people. We are talking about speech. Anyone should be able to read/write/think anything. The reason we need free speech is because without it we probably would snap a lot quicker.
It's better to be able to vent frustration than to hold it in. It's better to have movies and games to live a fantasy life than to make the real world the game.
The truth is there are only two sides. The crypto-fascists and everybody else. I don't really care if we disagree on as long as you don't want to regulate my life. Liberty is what allows for the pursuit if happiness.
The individuals who want to regulate our thoughts are making it more difficult or more expensive to be happy. It's not about hate speech, it's not about rap or rock music, it's not about video games, it's not about pornography, it's really as simple as some people just being born more violent than others. Violence is a genetic trait, it has nothing to do with what you are exposed to or what you watch on TV.
I watched horror movies when I was a 6 year old. Nightmare on Elmstreet, Terminator, Rambo. I watched porn when I was 13. I've never been violent, I've never hit a woman. If they want to be scientific about this why don't they ban violent people from buying violent movies and leave the normal people alone?
In specific a left libertarian. Another crypto-fascist on the court is not going to improve quality of life in this country. In fact it's going to be the main cause of many Americans fleeing to Canada. You can thank the thought police for that.
I wonder if these politicians have some kind of plot to make young people miserable by banning all entertainment that they dislike. If we have a problem with people who hate women, ban those people from buying violent games and from buying porn. But to punish everybody, including the people who defend women and womens rights is not justifiable.
And if she REALLY wants to regulate porn and hate speech, thats a fascist policy if there ever was one. Nobody has a right to tell you how to think and to regulate porn is thought control, as well as a free speech issue, and free expression issue. To regulate hate speech is also thought control.
Instead of calling people evil based on how they think, lets call people evil based on what they do. I'm sure many people think her thoughts on porn and hate speech are evil. Do we really want someone on the court who thinks in good and evil? Laws aren't about good and evil, it's not the bible. Maybe her quotes are taken out of context, everyone says a stupid thing over the years. Maybe she was young and didn't mean what she said.
But if she believes in the words she said there is no way I can support her confirmation because I don't believe she is going to be a strong leader on the court. To attack pornography and hate speech? That is what they consider important? To regulate thoughts?
The US military has had a system in place like this for quite a while now. All currently serving military personnel are issued what's called a common access card (CAC). It doubles as our military ID. On it is a digital signature and you have to have one to log onto any DoD secure network. The digital signature is also often used to sign documents in lieu of the old pen to paper method. It works great until it gets damaged and you have to get a new one.
I suggest that a Linux distribution designed specifically for journalists be created. Maybe call it Xerotrace. It has to be a liveCD, it can include Tor, Freenet, GNUNet, and encrypted truecrypt container for permanent storage.
They don't need your retina. They just need whatever big integer your retina digests to.
In case the conclusion isn't obvious: if they can get you to authenticate using a compromised scanner you'll only be able to handle that breach exactly once - assuming you have a second eye.
If you use your own scanner how exactly will it be "compromised"? Unless it's compromised the day you buy it.
The technology needs to be upgraded. I suggest that a Linux distribution designed specifically for journalists be created. Maybe call it Xerotrace. It has to be a liveCD, it can include Tor, Freenet, GNUNet, and encrypted truecrypt container for permanent storage. This could be combined with cloud computing to allow the blogger or journalist to upload their truecrypt container to the web via SSL. GPG should be included so the user can authenticate and confirm they are who they claim to be.
The main problem is that most journalists are not hackers. So while you have the rare hacker/journalist who can create their own linux distribution, write their own software, or can fully make use of whats already out there, the product has to be simplified greatly before it will be good enough.
The Arpanet even though it was designed for the military it was not designed to be an authoritarian tool or an information weapon.
I never claimed it was designed as a weapon.
I also disagree with your opinion of the military being authoritarian.
Perhaps you'd struggle less if you knew what the word meant?
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime. 2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience.
Do you understand what absolute obedience means? When a general tells a captain to do it, the captain better do it or else. Likewise when a captain gives orders to a private?
Yes, there are times when it's permitted to disobey an order, but they're edge cases. They don't sit down and debate everything so that, you know, like everybody's viewpoint is respected and then sing Kumbaya.
It was also designed on the assumption that those using it would know what they were doing.
The military's role is to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives if necessary. They all swear to protect that. So the soldiers actually use authoritarian means to protect the anti authoritarian interpretation of the Constitution.
Total non sequitur.
What the hell has the constitution got to do with the competence of miltary communication technicians (as compared to dizzy teens and grannies), or the internal organization of the army?
My original point was that virtual inanimate objects don't have political opinions. If you can show how they do, then I'm all ears. Saying the internet is anti-authoritarian is like saying usenet is a communist.
P.S. I think you need to up your comprehension skills. It seems to me you see a word or two and just go on a rambling and largely offtopic rant.
The problem isn't the military. If you are fighting a war and in the military you agree to accept the authoritarianism to win the war and survive. This is not the same as the expectations of civilians. Authoritarianism in a military is necessary to maintain a chain of command. Nobody is disagreeing with the need to have a chain of command.
Where we disagree is on whether authoritarianism is a means to an end, or an end in itself. Some individuals and entities seek power for the sake of becoming powerful without serving any higher purpose. Thats not a warrior. Warriors fight for a higher purpose, whether it's the Constitution or something else. The individuals who fight for corporate interests or money are mercenaries, this is totally different from a warrior in that for the mercenary it's just about making money and gaining power. There are no ideals, no Constitution to obey, just get money and stay alive.
You verify your identity by smartcard. We don't need a central authority to do it for us when we can just put our card into our reader and enter a pin.
When you go to an ATM do you need a central authority to verify your identity with a certificate?
We should be able to buy our own dongles. The only thing the government has to pay for is the retina scand and fingerprints, or anything else we want to store on the dongle as authentication. The pin entry + smartcard is good enough for the banking industry and ATM machines.
Then you use your retina along with your fingerprint.
Sure identity theft is always going to be possible but it would be much harder if they had to get your retina than if they just had to memorize your digits and crack a password.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't have enough control to make someone angry, sad, or happy, because they're individuals not objects. You can affect someone's mood, but you don't make it and you can't control it. People can't trust society because society because society is not trustworthy, because it treats them like objects. The solution is not satisfying their urges, but allowing them to be free.
Sure I can. If I punch you in the face a few times you'll punch me back. That is proof I can make you angry or scared. Not to mention you can drug people, apply hypnosis, or seduce people. Yes you can influence someones mood easily.
What you cannot do is influence someones behavior so easily. Just because they feel a certain way it doesnt mean they cannot apply reasoning to their situation and decide what to do.
That said I agree with you that liberty is the point of society. It's what we work for. To live without liberty is no different than being in prison.
As for society treating them as objects, you can recognize that all human animate objects prefer to be happy. You can create a society that doesn't get in the way of the pursuit of happiness. It's like each object is on a road, and the laws being passed sometimes are direct roadblocks that cause them to drive in ways which are less predictable and more erratic because they aren't happy.
On top of that you have people using all kinds of drugs and medication because society sucks so bad. Lets just be real about it, most people are depressed because society legitimately sucks. Every year and every decade society tells you what you can't do, makes you work harder and harder, makes you sacrifice more, pay more taxes, gives you more risk and danger, don't break the law even though thousands of new laws are created all the time. So it's possible that a lot of people are going to be miserable in hell.
Maybe we should make it heaven instead?
The example you gave is not about hate, it makes it illegal to incite violence whether the target is a social or ethnic group, or "people that work for BP", or "that guy over there".
Actually, your last example is not apt. There are already laws covering telling someone or a group to go kill a specific individual. Laws about inciting violence not against a specific person, but a social group, however, have not traditionally existed. Such laws have appeared more recently in response to individuals and groups who tell their followers to go "kill blacks" or "kill jews" or "kill faggots" or what have you. They are referred to as "hate speech" laws because they are about stopping a specific kind of hate speech that is likely to cause violence against some group by drumming up hate against that group. In fact, these type of "hate speech" laws are the most common, but because both individuals and the media don't differentiate when speaking about the laws, it all gets lumped together and people are confused about the issue. I don't know why you think hate speech laws only apply to ethnic minorities or something and that people can't hate "people that work for BP". Hate speech laws are about stopping speech that leads to violence against a group by inciting hate for that group. What the group is, is not the defining characteristic of hate speech.
so they wont say go kill them, they'll instead give a map, list of names and addresses, and racial information, and say they are pedophiles, criminals, "hate criminals" or whatever.
We will have nazi's and other haters talking in code because they don't want to be labeled a hate criminal. This only will make them smarter and harder to deal with.
If I say I don't like conservatives that could be interpreted as hate speech.
The easy way around this is to change the meaning of the words. So if I don't like conservatives I can say I ate preservatives. It doesn't make a goddamn difference because any speech can be interpreted as hate speech once code words are factored in.
Hate speech does not harm others. It's annoying but it doesn't harm.
It's better not to make those objects angry, sad, or upset because their behavior becomes unpredictable and uncontrollable. It's also just plain wrong to abuse an object by constantly beating on it, complaining about it, punishing it in all kinds of ways, taking away it's entertainment (porn), taking away its video games, taking away it's movies, taking away it's rock and rap music, taking away, taking away, taxing, taxing, taking, prison, removing, banning, restricting.
Then you wonder why those objects with feelings can't trust you anymore.
Beastiality has to be regulated because a dog or horse cannot give consent. Child porn has to be regulated because a child cannot give consent.
We don't have to regulate the pornography. We just have to make it illegal to have sex with a non-human animal or a child. It has nothing to do with regulating speech or regulating the porn. It's the creation of the porn that is the problem not the people who watch it.
They are not fascists. They are not like Hitler. They are the left but the authoritarian left. The authoritarian left leads to socialism of the kind that can result in secret prisons very much like what the Soviets had under the Communist regime. Once liberty is taken away you can't get it back without a fight.
So while the Democrats give you socialism and social programs, they take away your rights while they do it. Republicans just take away your rights and don't give you shit. I guess it's better to vote for the Democrats considering the options.
We haven't invaded Iran yet but we probably will. We will probably be in Iraq for longer than 100 years, especially if we invade Iran. We wont get rid of DADT. We wont legalize pot. We wont do anything except win the war and MAYBE just MAYBE fix healthcare.
So far Obama passed his healthcare bill. He passed a college loan bill(which doesn't go very far), but he and the congress in general never passes anything which increases liberty. There aren't enough libertarians on the left or the right.
The left likes to call libertarians "anarchists", even when the libertarians are socialists. The right likes to call libertarians the "fringe" or they get the leadership to sell out like Ron Paul has done and go along with supporting big oil.
There are not enough libertarians. There are too many crypto-fascists. They are some socialists but they are the Stalin/Soviet kind of socialist rather than the kind we need.
Our options are Authoritarian Socialism vs Crypto-Fascism.
Or are they both authoritarians who hate liberty? Maybe a combination of both?
As far as I'm concerned liberty is the basis of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" which could have been defined as the "pursuit of liberty" or the "pursuit of profit" which in other words is the pursuit of liberty.
To remove rights directly conflicts with an individuals ability to pursue happiness. You cannot be happy if you don't have any liberty. No you wont find many happy prisoners.
Of course it's the law around here. If it's not the law then who the hell is running this country? Does it run itself? Is it run by the Shadow government? Some director of some top secret agency?
Isn't ruling from the heart and not from the head exactly the sort of thing people rail against when it comes to Supreme Court nominees?
Following the text of the Constitution is not "reading from the heart". Regarding two rights that Ms. Kagen apparently takes issue with, the document plainly states that Congress shall make no law (1st amendment) and that the right shall not be infringed (2nd amendment).
Free speech is probably the most important right there is. If she doesn't respect free speech then imagine what she thinks of all our other rights?
We aren't talking about hate crimes. We aren't talking about men beating up their wives or neo nazi's killing people. We are talking about speech. Anyone should be able to read/write/think anything. The reason we need free speech is because without it we probably would snap a lot quicker.
It's better to be able to vent frustration than to hold it in. It's better to have movies and games to live a fantasy life than to make the real world the game.
The truth is there are only two sides. The crypto-fascists and everybody else. I don't really care if we disagree on as long as you don't want to regulate my life. Liberty is what allows for the pursuit if happiness.
The individuals who want to regulate our thoughts are making it more difficult or more expensive to be happy. It's not about hate speech, it's not about rap or rock music, it's not about video games, it's not about pornography, it's really as simple as some people just being born more violent than others. Violence is a genetic trait, it has nothing to do with what you are exposed to or what you watch on TV.
I watched horror movies when I was a 6 year old. Nightmare on Elmstreet, Terminator, Rambo. I watched porn when I was 13. I've never been violent, I've never hit a woman. If they want to be scientific about this why don't they ban violent people from buying violent movies and leave the normal people alone?
In specific a left libertarian. Another crypto-fascist on the court is not going to improve quality of life in this country. In fact it's going to be the main cause of many Americans fleeing to Canada. You can thank the thought police for that.
I wonder if these politicians have some kind of plot to make young people miserable by banning all entertainment that they dislike. If we have a problem with people who hate women, ban those people from buying violent games and from buying porn. But to punish everybody, including the people who defend women and womens rights is not justifiable.
This is thought control and it's wrong.
And if she REALLY wants to regulate porn and hate speech, thats a fascist policy if there ever was one. Nobody has a right to tell you how to think and to regulate porn is thought control, as well as a free speech issue, and free expression issue. To regulate hate speech is also thought control.
Instead of calling people evil based on how they think, lets call people evil based on what they do. I'm sure many people think her thoughts on porn and hate speech are evil. Do we really want someone on the court who thinks in good and evil? Laws aren't about good and evil, it's not the bible. Maybe her quotes are taken out of context, everyone says a stupid thing over the years. Maybe she was young and didn't mean what she said.
But if she believes in the words she said there is no way I can support her confirmation because I don't believe she is going to be a strong leader on the court. To attack pornography and hate speech? That is what they consider important? To regulate thoughts?
The US military has had a system in place like this for quite a while now. All currently serving military personnel are issued what's called a common access card (CAC). It doubles as our military ID. On it is a digital signature and you have to have one to log onto any DoD secure network. The digital signature is also often used to sign documents in lieu of the old pen to paper method. It works great until it gets damaged and you have to get a new one.
I thought the military had dogtags?
Several already exist.
And they aren't currently in development. I'm guessing governments got pissed off and threatened the developers with torture.
They don't need your retina. They just need whatever big integer your retina digests to.
In case the conclusion isn't obvious: if they can get you to authenticate using a compromised scanner you'll only be able to handle that breach exactly once - assuming you have a second eye.
If you use your own scanner how exactly will it be "compromised"? Unless it's compromised the day you buy it.
The technology needs to be upgraded. I suggest that a Linux distribution designed specifically for journalists be created. Maybe call it Xerotrace. It has to be a liveCD, it can include Tor, Freenet, GNUNet, and encrypted truecrypt container for permanent storage. This could be combined with cloud computing to allow the blogger or journalist to upload their truecrypt container to the web via SSL. GPG should be included so the user can authenticate and confirm they are who they claim to be.
The main problem is that most journalists are not hackers. So while you have the rare hacker/journalist who can create their own linux distribution, write their own software, or can fully make use of whats already out there, the product has to be simplified greatly before it will be good enough.
How many bank accounts have been hacked in this way?
I never claimed it was designed as a weapon.
Perhaps you'd struggle less if you knew what the word meant?
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience.
Do you understand what absolute obedience means? When a general tells a captain to do it, the captain better do it or else. Likewise when a captain gives orders to a private?
Yes, there are times when it's permitted to disobey an order, but they're edge cases. They don't sit down and debate everything so that, you know, like everybody's viewpoint is respected and then sing Kumbaya.
Total non sequitur.
What the hell has the constitution got to do with the competence of miltary communication technicians (as compared to dizzy teens and grannies), or the internal organization of the army?
My original point was that virtual inanimate objects don't have political opinions. If you can show how they do, then I'm all ears. Saying the internet is anti-authoritarian is like saying usenet is a communist.
P.S. I think you need to up your comprehension skills. It seems to me you see a word or two and just go on a rambling and largely offtopic rant.
The problem isn't the military. If you are fighting a war and in the military you agree to accept the authoritarianism to win the war and survive. This is not the same as the expectations of civilians. Authoritarianism in a military is necessary to maintain a chain of command. Nobody is disagreeing with the need to have a chain of command.
Where we disagree is on whether authoritarianism is a means to an end, or an end in itself. Some individuals and entities seek power for the sake of becoming powerful without serving any higher purpose. Thats not a warrior. Warriors fight for a higher purpose, whether it's the Constitution or something else. The individuals who fight for corporate interests or money are mercenaries, this is totally different from a warrior in that for the mercenary it's just about making money and gaining power. There are no ideals, no Constitution to obey, just get money and stay alive.
You verify your identity by smartcard. We don't need a central authority to do it for us when we can just put our card into our reader and enter a pin.
When you go to an ATM do you need a central authority to verify your identity with a certificate?
Who says the government has to pay for it?
We should be able to buy our own dongles. The only thing the government has to pay for is the retina scand and fingerprints, or anything else we want to store on the dongle as authentication. The pin entry + smartcard is good enough for the banking industry and ATM machines.
Then you use your retina along with your fingerprint.
Sure identity theft is always going to be possible but it would be much harder if they had to get your retina than if they just had to memorize your digits and crack a password.