2851
Recent Posts
The joke doing the rounds in MoD circles is “we now have what we didn’t have in 2003: a valid reason to invade Iraq.”
With the defence budget slashed, they don’t have much else.
24 hours to do something meaningful about it | OpenMedia
We have just 24 hours until key decision-makers behind the Trans Pacific Partnership’s (TPP) Internet Censorship plan begin meeting in Ottawa, Canada.1
Please Note: This is your last chance to use our easy-to-use “Internet Voice” to get your comment right in the hands of those crafting this extreme and secretive plan.
Your diligence over time has allowed your OpenMedia team to get a face-to-face meeting with them.
It’s crucial that we have as many original comments as possible to show TPP insiders when we meet them.
Nj, will you take this last opportunity to join Internet users across the globe and have your comments put in the hands of TPP decision-makers?
–Steve
Footnotes
[1] Trans Pacific Partnership deal elusive as talks set for Ottawa. Source: CBC News.
Scott Adams Blog: The Religion War Predictions 07/02/2014
...In the book I imagined that the government would combat terrorism by strictly limiting digital communications. If someone is not on your approved list you can't call, text, or email with them. If you want to add someone to your list, there's a bureaucratic process to do that. That part of the prediction is unlikely to happen because the NSA can monitor every form of communication, and that's a more effective solution. I didn't see that coming. But I'll take partial credit for predicting that the government wouldn't allow unfettered private conversations over networks in the future.
On what I've been saying and LEDs:I hadn't seen that video before now. Pretty impressive.-Renegade (July 01, 2014, 11:14 PM)
This NSA business had left me with the nagging feeling that I had seen it in a movie.
Tonight I was cataloguing one of my portable drives (all movies) using BooZet's Visual CD Version 4.0 and found the answer amongst a collection of short films. It's from YouTube: PLURALITY-IainB (June 26, 2013, 08:05 AM)
http://cryptome.org/...om-netsol-attack.htmSurely not censorship? Just a set of unlucky coincidences, I would think.
Of interest as it's about censorship of Cryptome (an important leak/info site). The reason for them being taken offline is a bit ridiculous.-Renegade (July 01, 2014, 03:47 AM)
"Secure". Sure.+1-Tuxman (July 01, 2014, 05:57 AM)
Sorry, I did make a fuller response but it got zapped in this cruddy editing window and I don't have the inclination to tediously rewrite it.I did understand the point. The definition of anarchy that you are using apparently includes the principle of non-agression.Yes. It was this part that made me think that you'd misinterpreted me:-IainB (July 01, 2014, 02:35 AM)You'd probably need to architect the thing with everyone's agreement though, otherwise a lot of innocent people will probably have to die in the revolutionary process.-IainB (June 21, 2014, 11:18 PM)-Renegade (July 01, 2014, 02:43 AM)
^ Might want to spoiler that image. Even though the thread is marked NSFW, there are limits...Good point. If he's the driver, and if that's alcohol he's drinking he could be in a whole lot of trouble.-wraith808 (June 30, 2014, 04:18 PM)
I did understand the point. The definition of anarchy that you are using apparently includes the principle of non-agression.@Renegade: Oh, sorry. I see what you meant, now. I wonder whether just swapping one religio-political ideology and system - one of government - for another - one of general anarchy - would be likely to generate much the same result as the above revolutions?I think you're missing the point I've tried to make in a few places - that the initiation of aggression is never acceptable. If we actually held that principle, we would have anarchy, which is apolitical.
It would be interesting to find out. You'd probably need to architect the thing with everyone's agreement though, otherwise a lot of innocent people will probably have to die in the revolutionary process.
A new kind of "new world order"?
Hmm...
______________________________________________-IainB (June 21, 2014, 11:18 PM)
http://wiki.mises.or...le_of_non-aggression
https://en.wikipedia...aggression_principle
More on that topic all over the place.-Renegade (June 30, 2014, 11:12 PM)
Hahaha. It was fine, thanks. ;-)Thanks - I just now got around to watching this.What did you think of my Youtube video?
I just thought I'd mention that I have a classic bloke's perspective on the fitting of tight (too-small sized) jeans. My somewhat vain and fashion-conscious room-mate at boarding school had bought a pair of Levi denims as they were regarded as being very fashionable and "cool". He soaked them overnight in cold water to get them shrunk, so they would be nice and tight.-IainB (June 29, 2014, 12:28 PM)-Arizona Hot (June 29, 2014, 09:28 PM)
Not sure about the guys, but I am sure the women here can relate, although I have not done anything like this since the 80's, when most jeans did not contain any Lycra. The only thing missing from this video is the coat hanger, to pull up the zipper.-app103 (June 24, 2014, 03:07 PM)
...The only argument I have heard that kinda/sorta makes sense, but is beyond my ability to research is, the energy saved by CFLs balances out the environmental damage of the materials used...Well, as I have said, this is a new issue to for me to consider, but as a concerned environmentalist I have to say that the argument you refer to is an unconscionable one that I have not come across before. I mean, for a start it presumes that deliberately increasing levels of health risks to humans and other animals in the environment can somehow be accepted as an "offset" if it helps to reduce power consumption, because that is in some way a form of net benefit to the environment.
This is interesting. Not in a generate discussion type of way (anything like that would probably end up in the basement), but interesting enough that I thought a wider audience might be interesting in seeing it.Thanks for that. Being as ignorant as I am about US politics, I found it interesting - though somewhat alarming. It seems to engage in an awful lot of "labelling" (some of which seems pejorative), and the result looks like a simplistic view of a strongly polarised religio-political ideological dichotomy. Is that how it actually seems to be perceived by the majority of Americans? (I see @40hz thinks it is spot-on.)
(see attachment in previous post)-wraith808 (June 13, 2014, 02:51 PM)
@wraith - Thanks for that! I'm going to print it out for closer study. Although there may be a few things anybody could quibble over from either side of the spectrum, a quick look and skim seems to say it's spot on.-40hz (June 13, 2014, 05:30 PM)
