Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DOTCOM saga - updates
Renegade:
40hz note to myself: Stop reading TechDirt and take it off bookmark list. All it does is make you angry. And speaking purely from a clinical perspective, you really can't afford to indulge in that level of rage at your age.
-40hz (October 24, 2012, 03:12 PM)
--- End quote ---
Good point. Same goes for the EFF site, Torrent Freak, and a truckload of other sites. Pretty much any news.
I find that it helps to simply laugh at the insanity. It helps keep the anger/rage at bay. After all, anger is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die. :)
Dude has a point! He's not going to win. (Which is a good thing for his health and personal safety - presidents that like the United States government to issue currency get assassinated.) But voting for him at least sends a message that you're sick of the same crap all the time.
-Renegade (October 24, 2012, 10:12 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's BS (IMO). It might send a message for you, but not for anyone else that cares. Too much money is tied up in the two political parties for any other party to be viable, and they know that. And knowing that, the marginal vote for other candidates sends no real message, especially not a lasting one. And the biggest reason that we don't have a viable third party (and truthfully we need 4 for real change) is that the other parties don't know how to work in small steps. It would take decades of concerted effort to create a viable third party, but working lower offices in an organized manner to spread the candidates and the messages.
-wraith808 (October 24, 2012, 08:45 PM)
--- End quote ---
I can certainly see why you'd think that I'm full of BS there.
I just can't help thinking about voting for the lesser of 2 evils and: "So, how's voting for evil working out for you?"
Right now it pretty much looks like people are being asked who they'd like to have their face kicked in by. Either way, you're going to get a boot stamping in your face, so why not refuse to answer and instead spit in their face? I see voting for someone else, like Gary Johnson, as spitting in their face.
wraith808:
I can certainly see why you'd think that I'm full of BS there.
I just can't help thinking about voting for the lesser of 2 evils and: "So, how's voting for evil working out for you?"
Right now it pretty much looks like people are being asked who they'd like to have their face kicked in by. Either way, you're going to get a boot stamping in your face, so why not refuse to answer and instead spit in their face? I see voting for someone else, like Gary Johnson, as spitting in their face.
-Renegade (October 24, 2012, 10:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
I actually didn't mean you... I meant him. And from what I've seen, you're only alternative until you become an alternative. There's just no way to get to that level playing that game without becoming who you're playing against. And yes, you can view it as spitting in their face, but I remember an old adage that hating someone is like taking poison and expecting them to die. I guess that's my point- in no way shape or form does voting for Gary Johnson (or not voting) hurt the status quo. All it does is make one more vote off the playing field. Though they appear the same, you can believe that what they put through is to some extent different. And though you might not be able to affect the political hot potatoes that they're going to pretty much punt or vote the same way or do the same thing about, those other issues that are different are not insignificant.
Renegade:
I actually didn't mean you... I meant him. And from what I've seen, you're only alternative until you become an alternative. There's just no way to get to that level playing that game without becoming who you're playing against.
-wraith808 (October 24, 2012, 11:05 PM)
--- End quote ---
And I thought I was cynical! :D
I would like to think that it is possible to get there without becoming them. See - I do have a few optimistic tendencies~! :D
wraith808:
LOL :)
In terms of that, yeah... unless you're able to rouse the rabble to change the rules, you have to play by the rules as set out. And those rules are played in such a way that to get ahead, you have to sell a bit of yourself. And by the time that you get there, you've sold everything that made you an alternative.
And I am pretty cynical in some areas, which actually manifests in strange ways in terms of my final output.
For example, you posted that 9/11 bit. The reason that I don't believe that the conspiracy theorists are right that it was the government is a two-fold reason.
1. The government has already shown themselves to be incompetent.
2. The government has already shown themselves to be incapable of keeping secrets.
At this level, there would have had to be a frightening level of competency to create the scenario shown, and a level of secrecy on the level of the so-called Illuminati for no concrete evidence of what actually happened to come forth, i.e the grassy knoll and the second shooter.
So, taking these, and going with the simplest solution- everyone wanted a reason and someone to blame, and was asking the government to find out for them. In it's usual inept way, the government rushed to judgement and released a half-arsed response, that didn't cover all of the evidence. Now, in their usual way, they try to cover up the fact that they were half-arsed, which then looks like a cover up in general.
It's more cinematic and validating to think that there must have been a cover up. But I think it's more realistic to think that it's just business as usual.
And yeah, read that book I pointed out. It's pretty dystopian, but strangely in that, not depressing. But it covers a whole lot about this, and some of the lines are real zingers.
Oh, and to see the differences (and note that the ones that don't make a difference internally are not included), there's a good comparison on this site where they evaluate the last debate (http://www.news.com.au/world/us-presidential-candidates-talk-about-bayonets-in-third-debate/story-fndir2ev-1226501175764). It's funny that to get anywhere near reasoned reporting on the US elections, you have to look on news sites outside of the US. But that's a different subject...
superboyac:
More updates, very interesting:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57543543-93/megaupload-will-be-reborn-as-me.ga-in-january/
MegaUpload will be reborn as Me.ga in January
--- End quote ---
The service will also not make use of any U.S. hosting companies. Me.ga will also enable copyright owners will be able to get "direct delete access" of pirated content provided they agree not to hold Me.ga's operators responsible for the infringement, DotCom told Reuters.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version