@Destroy All Monsters
1439 posts • joined 10 May 2011
More like, about time elected governments started roping in these parasitic money-grubbing corporations that think they're above the fucking law.
This is probably the most sensible post I've seen yet on the subject of feminism and misandry being used to incite rage and hate, and it's likely to remain so in the inevitable wave of bigotry and ranting that this thread is going to turn into.. Divide and conquer. Obviously the two brainwashed PC morons who downvoted you (as of this reply) lack the necessary brain cells to comprehend your point.
This is precisely why this hypocritical false "equality" exists - to enrage people and distract them from the real issue. White men are not privileged, any more than women or ethnic minorities are. The common PC furphy that because most privileged people are white men therefore all white men are privileged is the same as saying that because all boy-buggerers are gay therefore all gays must bhe boy-buggerers. What about privileged white women? Or privileged blacks - like Obama, currently the most powerful and privileged man on the planet? And what about all the "privileged" white men currently eating out of bins and sleeping in the gutters because they're so "privileged" they have no need of shelters, as women have?
I'll tell you what ALL privileged people have in common, and it's not gender, race or who they enjoy fucking. It's WEALTH and POWER. Nothing else. And they use this wealth and power to push bullshit like affirmative action and political correctness, pissing in the face of gender and race discrimination by doing so, for the express purpose of distracting the masses from the real issue, which is that 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth.
Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than the undermining and eventual destruction of the Occupy movement. For a while, they were a real threat to the established order. They exposed the reality of the greed, hypocrisy and corruption of the ruling classes that make a mockery of the principles of democracy and freedom.
Then along came the feminists, anti-racists, and gay-rights activists. Funded and encouraged by the ruling elite, they flooded the Occupy movement with their gender, race and sexuality issues, effectively dividing it and distracting it from the real issue, which was, and has always been, CLASS. Not gender. Not race. Not sexuality. CLASS. And in so doing, they divided and discredited the entire Occupy movement in the eyes of the public.
Only when more people realise that affirmative action and its various supporters are being used as tools to disguise the real injustices of the world will those injustices ever be corrected. Playing hypocrite and fomenting hate as the IESF is doing here simply plays into the hands of the real criminals - those currently running every western nation.
I wish I could upvote you a thousand times. But alas, I have only one to give.
I believe the phenomenon you're looking for is something I call "rant fatigue". Any politically charged issue that incites people to post long internet rants on the topic eventually wears them out, so they give up trying for a while.
For example: Every so often, I find myself getting my knickers in a knot about feminism and misandry and the injustices visited upon men and so forth. To vent it, I go on an internet rampage, tearing into feminists and their supporters alike, composing and posting long missives concerning fallacies about male privilege, the gender pay gap myth, the hypocrisy of affirmative action, rant, rant, rant.
Then, when I've got it all out of my system, I find myself in a burnt-out state of mind where I simply don't care any more. I get to the point where I could read a blog entry by someone like Andrea Dworkin going on about how all men are rapists and child molesters and should be publicly castrated, and not give two shits about it. As to commenting on it? Fuck it, can't be arsed. Next site.
That mental state is what I call "rant fatigue." I've spent the last day or so ranting to strangers about my pet hate, and I'm too stuffed now to write any more about it.
In your scenario, it appears that the climate "deniers" charged in yesterday and burnt themselves out ranting about the evils of the climate change lobby - so the next day, all suffering from rant fatigue, they left the comments thread to the "believers" first.
That's my take on the subject, anyway.
Glad to see Shakespearean euphemisms making their way back into modern jocular speech!
What's holding me back from giving a 3rd party all my data is the possibility of anyone rooting through it, state actor or no. That's why I would insist on all my data not being given to a 3rd party, and instead stored in-house on a computer under my control, where I can monitor and regulate any and all access to it. And that would make you think I'm not committed to data security?
AVoiceForMen has this to say about the kinds of manipulative scum who use these misandrist attacks to goad men into compliance with their schemes:
All your life you are told by others what it means to be a real man. And you are told how worthless you are if you don't measure up.
Just know this. Anyone, man or woman, sending you this message is trying to shame you into their service. They are manipulating you to carry their load, to take on their hardships; even to bleed and die for their cause... or their profit.
Don't buy the lie. No one but you can define you as a human being or measure your worth. Never trust anyone who puts an adjective in front of the word MAN.
No, we don't need to know everything our governments are doing in our name. We do, however, need to be able to know anything our governments are doing in our name. Transparency doesn't mean forcing everyone to constantly monitor governments' actions, it means having the ability to expose any action that people would have a good reason to object to.
You might not want to know the details, but those who have the means to stop the government from acting unjustly may need to know the details in order to prevent it from doing so.
"We want to just have a very consistent user experience, so if you have one TV in one room and another TV in another room and they both say Android TV, we want them to work the same and look the same."
Let me FTFY: "...we want them to work the same and look the same unless we, and only we, decide to change how it works."
What Google is doing is denying any design or creative input from any source other than themselves, as though only they knew how to design a user interface. It fits with the general mentality of micromanagement and absolute control that seems to be prevailing in corporate environments these days.
"It's hackneyed to the point of uselessness, comes off as smug and superior, and turns away the very people you might hope to sway."
AKA "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."
And it's amazing how many people these days forget this simple lesson. For example, I myself would probably be more supportive of the ideals of the various "equality" movements, were their proponents less disposed to snottily dismiss anyone who opposes them as an unenlightened overprivileged bigot, instead of logically explaining where they think the opponent is wrong. I wonder how much opposition to their causes results from this vinegar/honey effect, as opposed to genuine political disagreement with their ideas?
When I was a kid, an adult friend of the family once told me, "Everyone always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason, and the real reason... So before you say yes to anyone, make sure you know what the real reason is."
Your post is a perfect illustration of that early life lesson!
"Next step: direct taps on the optic nerve."
Communal response: "We don't serve their kind in here. Your 'droids - they'll have to wait outside!" will extend to "cybers" as well...
This is exactly why I no longer use any service Google provides, with the exception of the occasional search if I can't find what I'm looking for on DuckDuckGo (which is not often.) I learned that lesson with the demise of the iGoogle homepage.
My iGoogle homepage became for me a portal to the web. I had a news gadget, weather report, world clocks, currency converter, world sunlight map, dictionary/thesaurus, whois/IP lookup, and Wikpedia search all laid out conveniently in little boxes on my single home page. Then Google took it away, and I never found an adequate replacement; I feel to this day that the internet has taken a small step backwards for its loss. These days I just use the 9 preset 'quicklinks' Firefox displays when you open a new tab, to visit the sites that perform the equivalent functions, but it's not an adequate replacement for iGoogle.
But from this I learned the dangers of coming to rely on a service you do not control. It can be taken away, at any time, for any reason. This is exactly why I refuse to embrace cloud and SaaS - because it could be taken away at any time, and there's nothing you can do about it. Do all your graphics work in Adobe's Creative Cloud? Too bloody bad if Adobe shuts down or has problems. You lose all your work, everything. Keeping all your documents and reports on Office 365? Too bloody bad if Microsoft suddenly decides it doesn't want to provide the service any more. You lose everything.
And that is why I will now only work with software that is installed directly on my machine, that does not require any connection to the internet to keep working, has no expiry date or subscription-based bullshit, and saves its data only on my local drive.
So thank you Google, for teaching me this important lesson. I won't fall for that shit again.
"...but they keep electing stupid governments."
And in what way does that differentiate the people of WA from every other Australian state?
"None of the other places with big mountains have those mountains bordered by several thousand miles of ocean on one side and thousands of miles of low elevation flatland on the other."
Er... South America? Australia?
when this shit is linked to the facial-expression and emotional analysis software being mooted for monitoring your expression while watching smart TVs. I can picture you at the wheel, gritting your teeth and swearing at the moron who just cut you off, when this thing takes control, pulls the car over, and chimes in with:
"Look, Dave. I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over."
Rest assured, I'd have the fucking thing singing "Daisy, Daisy" before it got to the end of my street!
"2 electrodes, each connected closely to one side of the brain, what could possibly go wrong?"
Ve are goink to perforrm an electronik zerebrektomy!
I get where you're coming from, and I agree that people deserve the right to choose who they want to marry and/or make love to.
However, assembling internet lynch mobs - and make no mistake, "lynch mob" is exactly what this is - to destroy those who don't support their cause is NOT the way to go about it, no matter how right or true your cause may be to you.
If Mr. Eich has broken any laws, then you take it to court and you discuss his actions in front of a judge. That is how we deal with these matters in a civilised society under the rule of law. If the laws are inadequate to criminalise his actions, then you take it to your politicians and campaign to get laws passed criminalising opposition to your cause. Then if he continues to oppose it in spite of the law, then you take it to court and you discuss it with a judge.
Rousing up internet lynch mobs to destroy the lives of those whose political opinions differ from your own when they have committed no crime under the laws of the land is vigilante justice at best, and pitchfork-and-torches barbarism at its worst.
Since OKCupid was the bunch that started the hate campaign against Mozilla ex-CEO Brendan Eich, that forced him to resign for exercising his right to hold a politically-incorrect opinion, I can't say I feel overly sorry for all those members whose security is thus compromised by OKCupid's incompetence. I guess karma's a bitch.
Just to clarify: I personally have no problem with people's sexual choices as long as it's consensual. But I do have a problem when people see fit to ruin the lives of those who don't share their opinions, no matter how right you think you are.
The solution is simple: The affected business owners notify Yelp of the extortion letters and the threats, then if their business receives a lot of negative reviews and should Yelp publish them, the business then sues Yelp for the amount demanded by the extortionists plus damages for loss of sales, on the grounds that Yelp is aiding and abetting criminal extortion.
It's high time these so-called "business review" sites like Yelp were brought to account for this sort of thing anyway. While they do provide a useful service, the measures they take to prevent this kind of embezzlement are clearly inadequate.
My thoughts exactly.
For once, Apple have applied for a patent that I'd be quite happy for them to have. I hope they enforce the living fuck out of it against any other company that tries to do this shit!
It still allows strangers to use my Internet connection and consume my bandwidth allocation, for which I pay. I commented before about Telstra foisting this on their customers and my opinion on that hasn't changed.
Also, I don't trust this "separation from the private network" they speak of. On my home network my wireless is secured with WPA2-PSK, suppressed SSID and MAC filtering for any WiFi device trying to connect to it. Under all this, I have multiple folders shared across my computers, many writable as well as readable, and mapped as network drives. This is to facilitate passing Cinema4D files to my render farm and rendered images back, transferring data to and from my private website testing server, streaming movies, music and TV shows to my TV and various portable devices, and so on. I've maximised security externally and minimised it internally so I'm not bothered with having to grant access and enter passwords every time I want to get something from another computer on my network.
As a result, the thought of allowing strangers into my WiFi, regardless of any "separation", gives me the willies. Not going to happen. Not on my watch.
Actually I was quite pleased to see the Reg add that footnote about the lack of effort being made to encourage men into traditionally female fields. That balanced perspective is why I prefer to get my news from El Reg instead of the feminist-biased mainstream media. Of course misandrists like you would find that "misogynistic".
Just as misandrists like you feel it necessary to post mindless feminist rhetoric in the comments threads of every publication that doesn't grovel to your worldview. Do you honestly think you're going to convert anyone or make even one commentard cut his cock off in some form of male guilt trip with comments like that?
If you're looking for other man-haters to circlejerk with, Tumblr is right over thattaway. ---------------->
"...and only if followed by tearing down and rebuilding all of these organizations from the ground up."
Didn't one John F. Kennedy once try something along those lines...?
I wish I could upvote this 100 times.
This principle lies at the heart of all anonymising processes. It is an unfortunate fact that any anonymising system will protect paedophiles and terrorists if it is to equally protect good people fighting for freedom and human rights in bad regimes, because the alternative is that if the system can be compromised to allow the tracing of paedophiles, it can be compromised to trace anybody else a legal authority doesn't like. There can be no half measures; a system is either uncompromisably anonymous or it is not, and the downside is that uncompromisable anonymity protects evil people as well as good ones.
Technology doesn't do morality, and regardless of all the rights laws and privacy protections in the world, what matters is not whether a compromising agency will violate that protection, all that matters is whether it can.
It is, of course, impossible to know whether this artificial-muscle focusing scheme will ever make it into an Apple iPhone or iPad
It won't. It's simply so that if someone actually produces something similar they can stifle that innovation and stamp out competition which is what their business model is founded on.
Bring it, fanbois. My post vote ratio needs balancing anyway.
He might be Australian. We use "c*nt" colloquially, the same way Brits use "bastard" and Americans use "asshole", and it isn't intended to be misogynistic.
Dailymotion. Vimeo. Flickr. Metacafe. Veoh. Imeem.
This is your big chance, fellas. Even good old MySpace has an opportunity for a renaissance here.
YouTube will become socially declassé if it starts carrying on like this. In an age where everyone is trying to be individual and different, flocking like sheep to YouTube will soon become seen as simply following the flock, if you see my meaning. Especially once word spreads about how only mainstream corporate trash is allowed on there.
Yes, we may well be Google's "products". However, unlike traditional boxed products, these "products" can jump off the shelves and walk away. Take note, you greedy bastards.
Or even worse, you discover it's formed an enlightened civilisation and started demanding political representation and civil liberties. I've had some growths in my fridge that have evolved to the point of attaining telepathic Gestalt superconsciousness...
"And assuming you don't put empty packages/containers back in"
And you show me one bachelor's fridge that doesn't have at least two or three empty milk cartons, ketchup bottles, jam jars, butter tubs, or what-have-you...
Damnatio memoriae ?
Or, as Orwell more succinctly put it, unperson.
"A few have been known to think."
Such as Nick Xenophon. I'll pop a short letter off to him on the subject. He's been supportive before when I've contacted him, such as with the Conroy net censorship controversy, so I'll see what he has to say about this little piece of bullshit.
Nice strawman, and one typical of religious apologists.
It has nothing to do with feeling or being "superior", and everything to do with me deciding how I live my life, including my right to drink alcohol, eat ham and bacon, watch pornography and whatever else in my own home without self-righteous, sanctimonious bastards like you reaching into my life and telling me how I must live simply because some book written by a bunch of power-crazed desert goatherds 2000 years ago says I must.
Religious people need to be dug at, as long as their fairy-tale mythologies continue to be used as an excuse to dictate what everyone else is and is not allowed to watch, read, listen to, eat, drink, learn, teach, say or wear.
"I #wish that #people wouldn't #hashtag every #other #fucking #word when they #post #comments on these #fucking #things..."
"we developed a sensor that could instantly analyse the nutritional content of what’s inside a beverage … on a molecular level"
Can anyone spell poison snooper?
I get where you're coming from, Trevor, and believe me I do know how horrible people are. So horrible that I've even refused to have children because I despise the human race that much.
Those who are in power are exactly the ones who shouldn't be (I think Douglas Adams put that most succinctly) since they got there by being greedy, unscrupulous, manipulative, sociopathic, all the traits that make human beings so horrible. So by restricting the tools of power, such as surveillance, to those people we are effectively handing our world over to vicious sociopaths anyway.
Achieving a balanced society has always been humanity's greatest bugaboo ever since we figured out how to throw rocks at each other. History has shown time and again, right up to the present day, that technology that enables one man to gain power over another always results in degeneration to an oppressive, brutal society ruled by Machiavellian overlords. Our world is going that way right now. So how do we avoid where this is all inevitably going?
While I see your point about psychos, bitter exes and moral crusaders going on rampages against you or whoever, and believe me as an MRA I've encountered first-hand the sheer malice and hatred of the more radical feminists in our world as well, I can't see any other way of achieving the social balance of power our world really needs.
I'd rather there was no surveillance technology at all, and we could all go about our lives knowing that our every move is not being tracked and monitored. But unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle. We can't put it back in. All we can hope to do is to implement some means of holding those who hold the reins to account. I don't trust our rulers; few of us do. We all know that their objective is to enslave and dominate and control and get as much as they can while giving as little as possible.
So like you, yes, such an open "level" world scares the hell out of me too. But a world in which only those who have already seized power by any means retain sole control of the means to hold onto it, scares me even more.
Very well put, Trevor, and I couldn't agree more. For a long time now, I myself operate on the principle that if I am outside my house, I am on at least one camera somewhere. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's not so much the cameras as the person-recognition software (such as face-, voice- or gait- recognition) and the metadata it creates that is a far more serious threat.
However, I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that such technology is accessible to all rather than a privileged few who will inevitably abuse it. I'd feel a lot happier if every CCTV camera was a webcam instead of just a police camera, for example.
I know this sounds at odds with my previous statement, but bear with me here. If the technology is accessible to all, it levels the playing field. Corrupt police would not be able to "mysteriously lose" CCTV footage that shows them in compromising situations. Stalkers and sociopaths would themselves become equally subject to being tracked and monitored. The long-term recording of all this information means that if anyone takes me to court for something, or tries to otherwise harm or ruin my life, I could also backtrack them and discover their motives in response. Public access to this level of surveillance would enforce transparency and accountability for everyone, high and low alike.
This is why such openness and accessibility would be absolute anathema to those in power. The power and allure of surveillance is its ability to watch without being watched in turn. I suspect that a lot of privacy legislation and privacy issues are being publicised and driven by these people precisely to prevent the equalisation of power that public access to surveillance technology represents. The elites want themselves and their police cronies to be able to monitor everyone but not to be monitored themselves.
So if we are to have mass surveillance and it is unavoidable, I'd far rather it was turned equally on everybody and accessible to anybody, instead of just a few privileged powermongers who will inevitably use it to turn our world into a police-state hellhole.
1. Provide "free" internet to everyone on the planet.
2. Since nobody wants to pay for something that can be had for "free", all the ISPs go out of business.
3. With no ISPs the Internet as we know it dies and is replaced by the "free" Googlenet.
4. Google now has final and absolute control over what is allowed to be posted on the Googlenet by simply blocking access to whatever they don't like, and also gets to record and utilise the browsing history of every person on the planet, Chrome or no Chrome.
5. Don't be evil my fucking arse.
"Hey officer, I have a huge flashing glowing bonnet distracting everyone on the road! Please pull me over!"
"Better go through your library, make sure you don't have any novels in which the protagonist seduces anyone underage."
Oh shit - better get rid of my copy of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant then. That Chapter 7 of Lord Foul's Bane is a real doozy...!
I'm not an astrophysicist, so there's probably something I'm missing, but... Wouldn't the Earth's magnetic field and Van Allen belts shield us from these things? You know, the way they shield us from that bloody great thermonuclear bomb that's blazing its guts out 150 million kilometres away?
Good idea. I might experiment with that checksumming photos technique and see what I come up with.
I'll hold your post up as prior art should some innovation-stifling patent troll try to patent this. Would you be generous enough to put your idea into the public domain for all to use? If I invent something worth marketing I'll slip some of the proceeds your way!
As always, it's not the cameras that are the problem - if you're in a public place, you can reasonably expect to be photographed by CCTV and people with cameras alike. There's no privacy invasion there, because a picture is just a picture.
The problem is the face-recognition software attached to the cameras. That's where the privacy violation comes in, because it goes from being just a picture to a direct automated means of identification. Use of this sort of software needs to become subject to strict regulation and privacy legislation, not the use of cameras alone.
Imagine if the vending machine company buys access to Facebook's face-recognition database and uses it to identify people walking past the machine. I can picture some vending machine yelling out, "Hey, Steve! Steve Roper! Come here, I've got some awesome snacks for you!"
Now in my book that is a violation of my privacy, regardless of my being in a public place. A person who knows me and recognises me and calls my name is one thing, but a machine doing it to all and sundry via a database whose information was submitted under conditions of privacy is something else entirely.
This shit needs to be nipped in the bud, and it needs to be nipped in the bud NOW.
<sarcasm>Well, generally to get any kind of internet access you do in fact need to sign up with an ISP, aka Internet Service Provider. I'm assuming you already have an account with an ISP or similar carrier in order to be able to post your comment. </sarcasm>
Given that the protocol behind this is W3C approved, I'd say it's pretty much odds-on that it'll work directly over your internet connection. You'll likely need the IP address of the person you wish to call, and there will be a protocol to specify when linking it (similar to the tel: protocol I'd say), but that would be the extent of it. I can't see why you'd need any additional "services" to implement that, any more than you'd need an additional service to use IRC or FTP.
"Does the word BLOAT mean anything to you Mozilla?"
Exactly this. The main reason I started using Firefox in the first place was because of its speed, efficiency and simplicity. And I don't get why they think having this feature as a plugin or addon is such a bad thing.
The whole reason the plugin/addon system was originally implemented was so that users could customise the browser with the features they wanted. That way, it only took up the minimum system resources required to implement the desired feature set, and gave the user freedom of choice.
Mozilla have lost their way in this regard: the ability to make video calls is not something every user is going to want and embedding it into the browser instead of releasing it as an addon simply adds bloat, slows it down even more, reduces user choice and undermines the entire philosophy of simplicity and customisability that made Firefox great in the first place.
If it's that they're concerned that by making it an "extra" to be downloaded that people won't take it up, why don't they simply include it as an addon with an update and with new installs of the browser? That way, those who don't want it can uncheck it or uninstall it, and Mozilla still gets the "wider take-up because it's opt-out not opt-in" effect.
Millions are out of work because all their jobs have been outsourced to third-world countries, wages and salaries have been pared back to the bone while prices have increased to the point where most people are now working 60+ hour weeks just to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, and these idiots wonder why people can't afford to keep buying new shinies? Where the hell do they think the money's coming from?
I'm reminded of an interview I once saw with some celebrity back in the Y2K millennium celebrations. A luxury boat was to sail down Sydney Harbour at midnight and the starting price for entry-level tickets was $90,000. "Oh, it's not exclusive," the celebrity said, "it's open to the public, anyone can buy a ticket and come on board with us." Yes, this is how delusional these people are; they think that just because that kind of money is pocket change to them that anyone can just pull 90 grand out of their arse.
It's certainly credible that Snowden may be having paranoid delusions or be on an ego trip, but intelligence agencies have been discrediting opponents and crying wolf for so long that it's impossible to believe anything they say any more.
Just like the old Aesop's fable I learned as a small child, when you lie all the time as a matter of course, eventually nobody will ever believe a word you say. The three-letter agencies have dug their own graves on this one.