1207 posts • joined 10 May 2011
Re: Now we come to it
"I suggest you go and get popcorn, this will be interesting to watch."
Agreed. Which was why I asked for a large bucket of hot buttered and a Coke. I'm looking forward to seeing the fallout from this!
BTW I'm 46. Is that younger than you? You never know on these forums. ;)
Now we come to it
What's "repressive action"?
Are the collective goverments of the EU going to cut off public access to Google, YouTube, ReCaptcha and half the internet which Google controls? Can't wait to see the shitstorm that's going to result from that. Or are they just going to fine Google huge amounts of money, utlimately leading Google itself to cut off European public access to its own sites (resulting in the same shitstorm).
Either way, Google wins. Because so many people are so dependent on its services that it's become indispensable. But if Google wins, that means it can thumb its nose at laws and governments alike, and that is not a good thing. Forced nationalisation, anyone?
So may we live in interesting times. I'll have a large bucket of hot buttered and a Coke, please. This is going to be good!
Re: Spider Robinson covered this a few years ago
James Blish also examined this "bubble universe" topic in 1959 with his Cities In Flight saga. In the final book, A Clash of Cymbals, he describes a collision between two universes (this one of matter and another of antimatter, since the Higgs wasn't known about back then) and how this entire universe would be engulfed as a result.
"organisations full of bribe-seeking corrupt people where even at the top they have a track record of being caught red handed and being jailed"
I hope this university has some really solid proof to back up that statement. Otherwise that has to be the most spectacular example of pots, kettles and the absence of colour I've ever seen!
$100k for a glass door?
What the fuck is it made of - Waterford Crystal?
Re: About this proposed ban
If you have radical feminists in your government you need to vote them out now, especially the male ones. During my nearly two decades of egalitarian* activism, I've noticed that the vast majority of male feminists I've encountered, are invariably the most radical self-righteous hypocritical bigots this side of the Taliban. And this Ögmundur Jónasson fits the profile perfectly.
Ironically, most female feminists I've encountered, even those who are lesbians, are actually quite reasonable in comparison. After all, their agenda is to get a fair go for their own sex, not to disenfranchise men, which I've never had a problem with. It's the anti-male demonisation and disenfranchisement, most of which is driven by male feminists with a small smattering of hard-core female man-haters, which I oppose with such vehemence. And this anti-porn bill, such as you describe, is a typical modus operandi of such people.
So the old stereotype (and oft-used strawman) of the butch lesbian feminist man-basher is exactly that: a stereotype. It's the male feminists you have to watch out for. Warn your friends and get that bugger out of office come the next election, if you value your people's freedom and dignity at all.
* Egalitarian means advocacy of equal rights, with no preferential treatment, for all people regardless of gender, race or whatever. Some feminists (again mostly male ones) try to make the weasel claim that feminism is about equal rights for all, but that is a deception intended to validate their misandrist worldview. Feminism is, and has always been, about female rights in particular; that is why it is called feminism. Treat with suspicion anyone who makes this claim - and I'll give better than ten-to-one odds it's a male making it.
Wikipedia has its uses, with caveats
As long as the subject you are researching isn't politically charged (e.g. climate change, World War II or the Kennedy assassination) it is usually fairly accurate. In particular its articles on politically neutral subjects like mathematics or physics are a good starting point if all you need is a working understanding of the topic.
For example, the Wikipedia article on Mersenne primes explains the concept quite effectively (that is, that a Mersenne prime is a prime number one less than a power of two) without any political overhead or agenda. There is no dispute about what these numbers are or are not, just the simple fact of their existence and how they are calculated. For citation purposes of course you would look up the referenced articles at the bottom of the page for more authoritative discussion of the subject.
The danger comes when an article carries a political agenda. A good example, discussed on your findingdulcinea.com link above, is climate change. (TL;DR - A UK scientist, William Connolley, gained Admin authority on Wikipedia and used it to push a pro-climate change agenda while banning opposing contributors) In these cases, of course the references at the bottom will also all be in favour of the agenda in question by virtue of their being selected to support the article. This makes it very difficult to even locate opposing views from the references.
So as in all things, use your better judgement. If your topic of research is even slightly politically charged, don't go near Wikipedia at all. Use a variety of search engines (not just Google) and give equal attention to points made for and against. But for purely scientific or mathematical research where no political agenda is involved, Wikipedia makes as good a starting point as anywhere.
Printer to pen ratio?
You've got to be fucking kidding me. Several pens per printer? Not a chance in my place, home or office. Pens disappear within minutes, sometimes seconds of discovery or purchase, every time. What I have is an effectively infinite printer:pen ratio, because I have two printers and zero, count them, zero pens. Printers at least are too big to disappear into pockets, handbags or microscopic invisible black holes!
Where have I heard this sort of thing before?
"Next morning, a crowd gathered on the common, hypnotised by the unscrewing of the cylinder. Two feet of shining screw projected, when suddenly, the lid fell off..."
I need to catch a cold, and fast. Those bloboid bastards aren't injecting my blood into their own veins without a fight!
Holodecks aren't just about processing power
Sure, we might be able to recreate the visuals and audio within a decade or so, but that's a long way from what the ST:NG holodecks were depicted as being capable of. Tactile and olfactory simulation being the biggest challenges here; how to simulate the roughness and solidity of a rock, or the furriness of a cat, or the softness of a comfy armchair? Then there's smell and taste, which are notoriously difficult to replicate, let alone simulate.
I can see "360-degree viewing rooms" emerging within the next 10 or so years: I imagine a cuboidal room, perhaps the size of a toilet cubicle, whose walls and ceiling consist entirely of hi-res monitors to create the effect of you being inside a "glass box" within a virtual environment. For real authenticity these monitors would need to be capable of parallactic 3D (not the simple stereoscopic pseudo-3D of today's TVs) so if you move your head to see around a nearby tree, for example, what's behind the tree comes into view. And that technology is quite a long way off yet, as it requires in-situ 3D positional mapping of every object in the scene, although the computational power discussed in the article certainly makes running this kind of display feasible.
Re: The fact that even New York got served..
You're not alone, friend. You should do what I do with my company.
When I'm running up a quote for a customer, if during the interview I see them pull out an iPhone or iPad, I add a small percentage to the quote (it varies depending on how devoted to the Church of St. Jobs the customer appears to be) as an "Apple tax". After all, I figure that if they've got money to splurge on Apple crap, they've got money to splurge on our services!
I've made my company quite a few grand extra by doing this. My partners know I do it too, but since they hate Apple almost as much as I do, there is no objection, as long as I disguise the increase amongst other itemisations on the quote sheet!
Thank you for proving the exact point the article (and several commentards) were making about the behaviour of Apple fanbois. You're a textbook case.
John Sheridan, eh?
Must be a relative (ancestor?) of one Capt. John Sheridan, who also proved his acumen for financial finagling by working the books so that EarthGov ended up paying rent to itself for his command staff's use of the officers' quarters on Babylon 5...
"We're not dinosaurs, reliant on a certain climate or delicate environment..."
I recommend you look up a book/documentary called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. He's an anthropologist who spent 30 years researching why Eurasian civilisations dominated the world over other cultures, and his thesis states that geography - specifically the temperate conditions that allowed certain species of food plants (wheat, oats, barley) and animals (goats, cattle, horses) to exist - is what gave the Eurasian cultures their edge, by freeing them from the exigencies of survival and enabling specialisation. When they attempted to colonise the tropics, their traditional survival methods failed because the plants and animals upon which our civilisation depends were not adapted to survive there.
So we do need surprisingly specific conditions to survive, or at least to maintain the structures of advanced civilisation. Without our temperate-zone climate, wheat and other staple foods don't grow, and without them civilisation as we know it cannot stand.
In a post-impact Earth, survival alone becomes only a thin possibility. If we look at past extinction events - the Permian-Triassic or the Cretaceous-Tertiary, for example - we see that the climate changes that resulted from them weren't measured in decades or even millennia. The lushness of the Permian gave way to the deserts of the Triassic; likewise with the verdant Cretaceous and the barren Tertiary, both of which lasted for millions of years before the Earth recovered.
In a mass-extinction event of this magnitude, large, complex lifeforms cannot survive. Only the smallest, simplest creatures can eke out an existence, and give rise to new evolved forms over time; the dinosaurs from the Permian-Triassic, and the mammals from the Cretaceous-Tertiary. The poisonous atmosphere, the centuries of global winter darkness resulting from an impact - these effects would last far longer than our civilisation has already existed and developed, and so the chances of anything much more complex than a frog surviving them are marginal at best.
So "re-colonising Earth" is simply not a viable proposition in the aftermath of such an event. Not unless we can maintain a civilisation in underground bunkers for a few million years at a stretch, until the Earth becomes inhabitable again...
You're slipping, Eadon!
This article is about asteroids hitting the Earth. You should have been able to work in at least one little MS diss in there somewhere!
@Marketing Hack Re: fox awareness
"The fox doesn't see beauty or experience admiration."
How do you know that? Have you looked up any research on animal cognition? There is increasing evidence that many animal species are self-aware and capable of cognition in ways that we are only just discovering. A quick google of "animal intelligence" or "animal cognition" will turn up some very interesting articles on the subject, and if they teach us anything at all, it is that human intelligence differs from that of other animals only in the extent of our abilities to harness the natural forces and materials of our environment.
"umbilical you can tow a lorry with"
Yes, I also remember those from my childhood back in the 70s. There was one time when my parents were shopping for a new TV, and one had a "wired remote" with a rather hefty cable - about which I recall Dad commenting that "you could moor the bloody QE2 with that thing!" And that was back then...!
Re: Lateral thinking
The problem with your suggestion is that if we did use said "biological transport mechanism", we'd all be up to our necks in "bio-degradable waste products"!
Re: One problem hopefully solved
As Mr. Orwell so rightly pointed out in 1984:
"...and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was all part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week."
Of course, the real reason the power was cut off was precisely to reduce the quality of life; part of the underlying principle that power is asserted by making people suffer.
This is gaffer tape, the magical fix-everything solution you're talking about here. Gaffer tape does not just "fall off."
Re: 2 Year Elec Eng Project
White-line following cars? How very 70s! ;)
I remember seeing a circuit for a white-line following model car in an ETI magazine back in 1979 or thereabouts. Only that one didn't use complex computer chips or software; as I recall, it simply consisted of two side-by-side phototransistors either side of a light bulb, feeding into an op-amp-based voltage comparator, which in turn fed current to the steering servo, according to which one of the phototransistors was receiving more light from drifting over the white line than the other. No CPUs or software involved, just a basic electronic feedback loop consisting of a handful of resistors, capacitors, transistors and a cheap op-amp IC (an LM 3900 IIRC.)
These days the solution wold consist of a billion-transistor CPU, a gig of RAM, a CCD camera and ten thousand lines of optical-recognition code to achieve the same result!
(Reg, we seriously need a "Get off o' my lawn" icon for us old farts that remember this shit...)
The problem with that philosophy is
that if enough sheep do buy it that it becomes a market standard, every other company jumps on the bandwagon, and then we have no choice left.
Consider for example what has happened with IT: Apple enjoyed such massive success with the iPad and iPhone, and their attendant walled-garden and restrictive ownership conditions, that every other company is now emulating it - even Microsoft has now jumped on the walled-garden bandwagon with Windows 8, and for those of us who want to remain free of this paradigm, our options are fast running out.
Likewise with Facebook and Twitter; I'm seeing an awful lot of companies wanting to see your social networking profiles as a condition of application for employment. If you don't have one, your employment options are becoming increasingly limited.
Please note this is not to have a dig at Apple or Windows 8 or Facebook per se, but merely to illustrate the principle of how a restrictive, controlling paradigm can become the norm if enough people buy into it.
In the end, when someone says "If you don't like it, don't buy it", what happens when it gets to the stage where you need some version of it to function in modern society? These days, you can't get by in any first-world country without the Internet or a mobile phone; you may hate them, but you can't just "not buy one", because you'll find yourself unable to access essential services without it. Your only other option in such a situation is to go and join an Amish community.
This is why we complain about these sorts of trends - because we know from painful experience that if it remains unopposed, eventually we'll be forced into adopting it by the sheer momentum of mass-market takeup.
If you close the shutter, or otherwise cover the camera, the service will still work as normal, but your name and address will be quietly added to a watchlist of people who have something to hide and therefore something to fear.
Then, the next time you go through an airport or a passing cop looks up your numberplate, you'll find yourself being "randomly selected" for some reason...
Re: Bill C-30 is dead! Long live Bill C-55.
Exactly. If they can't get it in through the front door they'll sneak it in piecemeal through the windows.
the "open source is automatically better" argument.
And your argument as to why open source isn't better is...?
Re: Styx and Lethe?
Well, I was actually thinking of LV-426 when I said Acheron, but your point is also taken!
Styx and Lethe?
Well, if Hadean rivers are permitted, one of the moons at least has got be called Acheron!
Re: now I'm really worried
Like you, I'm also a desktop power user; as a programmer, graphic designer and 3D modeller it's not unusual for me to have Cinema4D, Photoshop, DAZ Studio, Notepad++ and a browser all open on my 4 monitors all at the same time. With the Windows 8 regression to the "one fullscreeen app at a time" interfaces replacing the windowed interface, it looks like I'd lose that capability. And as you can imagine, I also have terabytes of images, 3D models and source files on my hard drives.
No way am I trusting all that work - my life's work - to the cloud, or to a SaaS setup, to start with. But that's where the modern mentality seems to be going: no more once-off payments for your software, and no more bought-and-paid for storage either. In the future, everything is to be stored in the cloud, under the control of others, where you will be forced to pay and pay and pay or lose everything. Your computer is to be remotely controlled and subject to the whims of whichever company runs the OS for it - MS, Google, Apple, whoever. The only software you will be allowed to install is what 's permitted in their walled gardens. It's all abut taking control of your computer, your work, and ultimately your life.
Then there's my music and movie collection, which I've painstakingly built over the years. All this is now to be set up in the cloud and streamed to your system on demand - a set up which makes it really easy to rewrite history, restrict access by country, profile your entertainment tastes, delete an old favourite forever, and enables a pay-per-view/pay-per-listen model, in which nothing is ever really under your own control anymore.
So the way I look at it is this: I've become an upgrade refusenik from here on out. My heels are dug in, and the line has been drawn - THIS far, NO further. The version of Cinema4D I have (R12) is easily capable of photorealistic renders, it can do cloth simulation, hair, grass, trees, character modelling, the works - and it can render a scene so realistically it's indistinguishable from a photograph. The version of Photoshop I have also has more features than I'll ever need. The software I have now is more than capable of anything I'll want to be able to do in future. Consider - if my raytracing software can render to photorealism, why will I ever need anything more? In the past, it always fell short of photorealism, which was the Holy Grail of 3D modelling, but now that's been achieved. And with it's multicore support, this software is now set up handle however many cores I can throw at it in future: 4, 8, 32, whatever becomes available.
Likewise, processor speeds, memory capacities, hard drive sizes, and monitor resolutions have all plateaued. I've been running 3.2 GHz cores for 8 years now, although in that time I've gone from single-core to dual-core to 4-core machines. Drive sizes have stalled in the low TB range for about the same time, and monitors have been running at 1920 x 1200 / 1080 for the same time as well. So it looks to me like the technology has finally matured and stabilised, and improvements are now incremental rather than revolutionary.
Windows 7 x64, which I now have, can handle more than enough hard drive space, processor cores, and RAM to satisfy my requirements for years to come. I can upgrade my hardware, and continue running the same software because the software is now geared to handle the upgrades, and it does all I want.
So I can see myself still using this same software in 10, 20, even 30 years' time. Because I've reached my ideal goals. Because the technology curve has flattened out. Because I WILL NOT hand over control of my life's work to power-crazed corporations hell-bent on raping my wallet with rentism and taking control of every aspect of my data and computing devices.
The thing I find most fascinating about evolution
is this: I look at my Dad and see a man similar to myself. Then there's his father - my grandfather, who was a sergeant-major and tank commander in North Africa in WWII. Then his father, who was a coal miner who lived in Wales.
And so on, and so on, following father to father, back through the centuries. Ask yourself this: Who was your direct line ancestor at the time of Shakespeare? Or the time of William the Conqueror? Charlemagne? Julius Caesar? Hammurabi? During the times of each of these historical figures, there existed a man who had a son who had a son which eventually led directly to me. Who was he? What was he like? What did he do with his life? These are questions we've all asked at some point in our lives.
Now keep going back - into the time of the Cro-Magnons, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Australopithecus. 3 million years ago, there existed a hominid ape who had a son who had a son which eventually led directly to me.
Finally, as we go back through the millions of years, this patrilineal trail leads to completely non-human creatures - cynodonts like the "ratlike" creature described in the article, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and finally stromatolites and pond slime. Somewhere in Earth's distant past, billions of years ago in the warm salty waters of the Proterozoic, there existed a stromatolite who had an offspring who had an offspring which eventually led directly to me.
I'd love to travel back in time and meet one of these creatures and say to it, "Hi great-something-granddad, how's the nesting these days?" The idea that the vast majority of my lineage, from the first organisms on Earth, is non-human, is something I find absolutely fascinating.
It makes me wonder: At what point did my ancestors "become" human - human enough for, say, a modern woman, to mate with them and conceive a child? Obviously this wouldn't be possible with an australopithecine man-ape, most likely not even with H. erectus or habilis, so at what point would it become possible?
It leads to an interesting paradox; evolution occurs so slowly that, if you can mate with the offspring, you can mate with the parent - yet at some time in the past, there existed an ancestor with whom mating would no longer produce offspring. Where does this "break" occur?
Re: Dead I suppose
Not just dead, mate. At 10k pints per day we're talking mummified and perfectly preserved here.
Re: Galactic Imposter
Ha, you reminded of when I was a kid back in the 70s and 80s. I used to imagine that my city (Adelaide) was a galaxy and that my parents' car (or my pushbike) was a spaceship, with the streetlights representing stars and the nearby houses being the planets that orbited them. The car was of course capable of Warp 9, while my poor little pushbike was only good for Warp 3 or thereabouts. Sometimes we'd go up to Mt Lofty, where you used to have an awesome view of the whole city (they close the lookout at night these days, sadly), and it certainly looked like a galaxy then to my young eyes!
Re: Which camera? Lens?
He probably snapped it with his mobile phone.
Considering the man's rather appalling taste in music as evidenced by his playlist, you should be thankful there's no Justin Bieber or Britney Spears in there.
Regarding the first album recorded in space, that honour was historically supposed to go to Jean-Michel Jarre, with his album "Rendezvous", of which the final part (the saxophone solo) was intended to be played by astronaut Ron McNair while in orbit aboard the space shuttle back in 1986. Except that the space shuttle in question was the Challenger...
Where do I donate
to Hogarth's legal fund? I have 100 bucks that wants to help her sue the shit-stained arses off these greedy fucking bastards.
I love it!
Every time something like this happens, as with the Megaupload fiasco last year, it demonstrates in huge 500 point Arial Black exactly why relying on The Cloud is a really, really bad idea. And the sooner everyone realises this and decides to keep their own files on their own servers the better it will be for the whole industry and the public as well.
This business of giving control of my data to others has irked me from day one, and anything that hammers this fact home to businesses and consumers everywhere is always welcome in my book. One day, people will get the message: you give control of your data to other companies only at your extreme peril.
ELEGANT looking wind farm?!?
Huge, noisy, towering, monstrous eyesores, stretching to the horizon, that blight the landscape for miles around, is your idea of elegant? Mate, I want some of whatever you're smoking! Anything that makes those vile things look good has got to be some awesome weed...
I'd prefer solar farms myself. Round here (Adelaide guy BTW, so right next door to you in terms of Reg demographics ;) ) the sun shines a lot more than the wind blows, plus a solar farm doesn't tower into the sky, visible from miles away, the way a wind farm does. And a solar farm doesn't need to be shut down if the sun shines too brightly either. Nor would it take up as much space to produce the same amount of power, and consider that wind power is basically converted solar energy in the first place.
That's gotta be your most contrived shoehorning of a Windows 8 diss into a article that has nothing to do with it yet!
not all of us read every article on the Beeb, so the Reg's rebroadcasting of it here means that I for one would never have known about this had they not done so.
Just because a news site doesn't print a story within 5 minutes of it breaking doesn't mean the story is no longer relevant.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Ok, so which civil liberty are we about to lose now?
Every time I see the media and children's organisations starting up about the need to protect children, my automatic assumption is that the freedom-destruction wheel is about to click over another ratchet.
So what's it to be this time? Is there a particular porn site that's been getting up some do-gooder's nose that needs to be added to the IWF blocklist? Or perhaps the police need a new invasive power that the public would oppose so some "think of the children" juice needs to be whipped up?
It is a sad indictment of modern society that such a noble goal as ensuring the safety of children has been so often abused and hijacked by powermongers with an agenda, that it has become a stereotype of assuming that more of our freedoms are to be taken away, rather than believing that someone somewhere is actually concerned about the well-being of kids with no other agenda behind the curtain.
And that's "offenses". With an "s".
Stop. Take a look at your browser address bar, the bit near the top where you can see the address "http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/02/05/digitally_signed_banking_trojan/".
See that ".co.uk" bit? That means that the site you are reading is based in the United Kingdom, an independent sovereign nation that (arse-reaming extradition treaties notwithstanding) exists outside of the United States of America, and whose citizens speak a language known as English, which is different to American.
In the United Kingdom, and in every other country that speaks English, the word "offence" and its variants are spelt with a "c", not an "s".
That was my thought on reading the headline as well, but it's not necessarily a misplaced apostrophe if we read the line as:
"A scientist's snap is the first video inside a thinking fish's brain"
In which case it becomes an apostrophe of possession (the scientist's snap, where "snap" is a noun, not a verb) and would pass. I realise this interpretation is a bit of a stretch, but an astute journalist could use it as a valid defence!
Or they could just fix it. El Reg?
Re: @Steven Roper
Vladimir: Fine, no problem. As long as we can also eradicate the double standard that the majority of women will end a relationship if a man demands a genetic test of a baby to prove his paternity.
"folks ought to receive equal treatment and opportunity-is that really such a scary idea?"
I'm right with you on that - depending on what you mean by "equal". Absolutely I hold that one's gender should in no way limit the choices available in any field - be it career, travel, hobby, anything at all. Believe me, I've encountered racial and sexual discrimination myself, so I know how infuriating it is. And I believe that everyone deserves a fair go, first and foremost.
The problem I've encountered is that some people, mainly feminists, and especially male feminists, often seem to have a weird, Orwellian definition of the word equal - in that all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others. In most dictionaries equal has the definition "having the same value; the same as." But let me cite an example of the kind of Orwellian thinking I'm talking about here: a so-called "equal opportunity" pamphlet given out to all students at the local TAFE (tertiary college). The first sentence in this pamphlet is "Equal opportunity does not mean everyone is treated the same."
Now to paraphrase the great Douglas Adams, this is obviously some strange usage of the word equal that I was not previously aware of. It does mean "the same as" in every dictionary I've ever read. But not to these people. What "equal" means to these people is something along the lines of "You are not allowed to stereotype people along the lines of gender or culture, but all white males are privileged, rich and powerful, and so don't deserve equal treatment like females, non-whites, and so on."
If anyone cannot see the absolute hypocrisy inherent in that statement they have a serious problem. I, for no other reason than being white and male, have been refused entry to educational courses, passed over for jobs and promotions, and denied my right of equal opportunity many times - simply because my skin is a particular light colour and I was born with a penis. This, by people who claim that stereotyping others on gender and skin colour is a bad thing. Obviously it's not such a bad thing if you happen to be white and male.
This is why I don't like "feminism". I do like "egalitarianism" - the belief that everyone should have the same rights, not just that women should have equal rights in the Orwellian sense. The clue is in the name: feminism. It's about rights for women, not rights for everybody. And this is as bad a thing as masculism - rights for men only, which in my view is just as ridiculous. Do you see?
So no, it's not a scary idea at all. What's scary is that an awful lot of people seem to be buying into the idea that it's OK to vilify, ostracise and discriminate against men in the name of so-called "equality", while sanctimoniously (and hypocritically) beating their breasts about stereotypes. And what's scariest of all is that people are trying to justify this stance under the banner of fairness and equal treatment for all.
And it's not.
Franklin, before you start parroting feminist rhetoric, please take a look at my recent Reg post here (it's about 2/3 of the way down the page, under the title "Different Standards") where I discuss the origins and reasons behind the "slut/stud" paradigm in detail. If this is a double standard, then so is the double standard in which men expected to pay for and raise other men's kids as their own because the mothers have lied about paternity, since a mother knows her baby is hers, but a father has no way of being sure. That's why this paradigm exists in every culture on the planet.
Re: Steve Dopier What is fair?
I'd respond to your post, Matt, if I believed you capable of understanding the response. But the last time somebody mangled my surname in a pathetic insult like that was when I was 12. Fucking grow up.
Re: What is fair?
What is fair is that these fat bastards pay the same amount of fucking tax that you or I do. If corporations are going to have the rights of human beings, they can damn well accept the responsibilities that go with them.
Living in Australia, I pay 16 - 20% of my salary in income tax, without even considering the 11% GST I pay on everything I buy. The article states that the likes of Amazon, Google and Apple make around 2.5 to 3 billion euro a year and pay an average tax of only 4 million euro. That's 0.13 to 0.16 percent tax.
I earn just enough to live on, and I'm paying a fifth of my salary in tax. These fat "greedy capitalists" you refer to make more than they know what to do with, and they're paying LESS THAN A FUCKING HUNDREDTH of that.
If that sounds fair to you, I can only say that would make you someone I'd never want to meet.
"Women are (hypocritically) held to different standards than men by society; a man who screws everything that moves is a bad-ass player but the women he beds are sluts and idiots."
There's actually a sociological and biological reason for that difference in perception, or double standard if you prefer. Consider the function of reproduction from a purely genetic and biological standpoint: A woman knows that her baby is her offspring, because she carried it for nine months and gave birth to it. A man, on the other hand, has no way of knowing that any given baby is his or not (or didn't until the advent of genetic testing) other than the woman's word for it. From a genetic viewpoint, the woman is guaranteed that the resources she expends on her offspring benefits her genetic material - the perpetuation of which is the sole purpose of reproduction.
The man, however, is at risk of expending energy and resources raising another man's child, and so his own genetic material is not perpetuated. This makes the non-paternal child a genetic "parasite" to the man, in the same sense that a cuckoo is a parasitic bird that tricks other birds into hatching its eggs and raising its chick. It is precisely this behaviour of the cuckoo that gives us the term "cuckold" - not merely a man whose wife sleeps around on him, but one who is raising another man's child, like the bird raises the cuckoo. He is thus denied his own reproductive right - the right to perpetuate his own genetic material, a right granted to women as an inherent fact of biology.
Therefore, the "slut/stud" paradigm was established as a sociological defence to help ensure that men are not wasting their energy and resources raising another man's child. Of course, in these days of genetic tests, such a paradigm is indeed outdated, and should be discarded. However, there is one small problem: If, as part of the new paradigm eliminating ostracism of women for promiscuity, men are not accorded the same advantage of being entitled to a genetic test to verify their baby's paternity, then the paradigm becomes a double standard against men; Since the man is expected to take the woman's word that his baby is his with no recourse to testing. By implementing that, you essentially destroy a vital defence mechanism ensuring that men have equal reproductive rights with women.
So, in brief, if women want to be free of the paradigm of ostracism for promiscuity, they have to be prepared to freely allow their male partners to genetically confirm their child's paternity at birth, without resistance or complaint. That keeps things fair and equal. Yet most women I know would dump their partners in a second if they demanded a paternity test of their babies. That's fine - but those women then have no right to complain if other men and women call them sluts for sleeping around.
Google searches don't have to be illegal to be of interest to goverments, or as evidence in a court case. For example, consider how a woman might be prosecuting her ex-husband for stalking her. If the ex-husband looked for her on Facebook or Googled her name on a frequent basis the woman's lawyers could use that to bolster her case. Likewise, a person accused of piracy might be shown to have Googled "[latest movie/song title] torrent" - which is not an illegal search in and of itself, but it wouldn't exactly help their defence in court. And if you think nobody ever searches for torrents on Google, you're missing quite a lot.
I would wager that the large majority of these searches are more to do with divorce, domestic proceedings, and copyright infringement type cases, than "spooks" from three-letter agencies snooping on John Citizen. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the actual reasons cited for the retrieval orders, rather than just raw numbers of subpoenas and warrants.
He probably said that
because he liekly owns shares in more than a few of them.
Judges and magistrates should not be allowed to own any shares in any company whatsoever, because the obvious conflict of interest becomes very evident when they come out with comments like that. They get paid enough that they don't need to own shares to make themselves even richer.
In fact, the principle of the judiciary not being allowed to own shares shouldn't merely be law; it should be a mainstay of jurisprudence on par with innocence unless proven guilt and freedom of speech.