This makes me wonder. This is obviously a very effective strategy, but why is it only ever effective for the bad guys? Why not turn it around on them?
Is there any way we could start spreading around the message "if you're a copyright maximalist and you don't support the fundamental rights of Internet users and computer owners, you're a child-porn-producing terrorist"?
The TPP is tainted. People say "Congress won't want to have to just throw the entire thing out because there could be parts in there that are good." But I think by now, we're to the point where it doesn't matter. This proposed treaty has been tainted and is officially "toxic" now, and the entire thing should be thrown out.
This is hilarious, because when I first read about the whole thing with people using Silk Road to hire hitmen online, the first thing I thought of was, "completely anonymous people using untraceable currency... someone ought to pretend to be a hitman, demand payment up front, and cash in!"
On the one hand, just on general principle I'd like to see the EFF take this on and smack Paramount down. On the other hand... just look at what movie adaptations of old favorites are like these days. I'm not sure I want to see Clarence walking around dressed in black and smiting people who make trouble in the world. So maybe this is actually a good thing? :P
Oddly enough, the only thing he's done that I can find fault with is this specific case. No matter what "contributing factors" may exist, suicide is a choice, and the person's blood is on their own hands and nobody else's.
But if this guy is going around the country taking down pedophiles, I say more power to him, and if you think he's doing something wrong then screw you, you're part of the problem. My brother got targeted by one of these sickos. He was being "groomed" by him and if a stroke of luck hadn't led to my family finding out, he would have become a victim. The legal system refused to do anything beyond issuing a restraining order because the guy hadn't actually sexually abused my brother yet, and his lawyer came up with this big line of crap about how our family was "persecuting" him because we "objected to his lifestyle as a gay man," and he ended up getting off scot-free.
My brother's safe now, but that doesn't mean any other kid he may end up meeting is. I wish this sherrif had been around back then, and had found him.
I work at a company that does software for broadcast media. We've been really successful, to the point where we've become the market leader and a lot of stations, including just about all the major networks with 3 letters in their names, run on our software.
A while back, we started looking at ways to implement "addressable ads," or targeted advertising like this. I always thought that was kind of creepy, but hey, it's a living. Then the NSA scandals started to break, and that's when I started looking for another line of work.
I found one. Next week is my last week here. After that I'll be doing software to help improve medical diagnoses and lab research. :)
As humorous as those are--particularly the second one--I'm not (principally) talking about the habits of the baby boom generation. I'm talking about the simple, fundamental underlying reality of demographics.
The group that comprises by far the largest percentage of the American population has now reached the phase in their lives when they are turning from net contributors to the economy to net leeches upon it. Barring massive unforeseen population shifts, (plague, nuclear war, etc,) this is going to be the most powerful fundamental force affecting our economy, and thus the course of our nation, until most of them have died off.
You wanna know the real problem? It's the economy stupid.
I'm not sure why you think this contradicts what I said.
If people were getting a living wage, taxes would be paid along with everything else.
Two problems with that. First, the largest segment of the population, the one that's been driving the economy for half a century now, is moving out of the wage-earners group, and they're large enough that even paying a higher wage to those who are left is not going to offset it.
Second, forcing businesses to pay a higher wage is counterproductive more often than not, because their first priority isn't treating workers well; it's padding the bottom line. They make up for it by either cutting labor or raising prices. (Or both.) That problem could be solved by additional regulations requiring business to not make up their losses in these ways, but that would very likely have some really ugly unforeseen consequences in other areas.
I doubt you were crying about the boomers when you were getting the advantage of any government programs funded by what they were paying in taxes either as a child or as enjoying little things like maybe say a play ground paid for with tax money, eh? Now things aren't quite going your way suddenly it's the boomers fault.
You know nothing about my childhood. If you did, you'd have some idea just how much of an idiot that statement makes you sound like. And yes, when a huge generation irresponsibly racks up massive debts for decades, living well beyond their means, so they can live large, and then expects me to pay it off, it's hard to imagine any sane definition of "fault" that excludes them.
Let me break it to you easily. There was enough funds in social security to fund their retirements. Only the politicians of the time wanted that money since they had drained everything for the Vietnam War. It wasn't the boomers that spent the money. Crap they've been doing that since Johnson was president and continue to do it today. Only problem now is that it's time to pay the piper and they've already spent the money.
Yes, politicians spent the money. But where did that money go? Who did it benefit? (Hint: who's been the largest voting demographic ever since the 1970s? Who's been putting those politicians into office?)
Grow some nuts and understand you have to work for what you get, just like everyone else, including the boomers had to.
I don't quite see how anything I've said can be construed as "I'm not working for what I get." I've got a solid, stable job and have for years, doing exactly that.
But I'm a bit curious as to why you seem to think that the boomers worked for what they got. Did you sleep through the entirety of the 90s and the 2000s? Most of what they got, they got on debt, which by definition is stuff that you have not yet earned by working for. And then the piper came calling in 2008, and the rest is history...
We've seen a lot of changes in government policy lately, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it's happening right now. Our country is in decline. I'm not saying that in the grumpy sense of "things were better back when XYZ," but in an absolute, objective, verifiable sense.
Consumer spending drives around 70% of the economy, and almost 1/3 of the US population is the Baby Boom generation. For the last half century and more, for all intents and purposes, the Boomers have been the US economy. And now that they're reaching and approaching retirement age in massive numbers, they've switched from driving the economy to dragging it down. This means that our country is objectively in decline and will continue to be in decline until the majority of boomers die off.
The problem is, barring sudden and miraculous advances in certain highly specialized fields of medical research, there is nothing anyone can do to keep this from happening. (Other than getting it over with quickly by taking a page directly from the playbook of Nazi Germany, of course, but that's not an idea anyone's going to consider seriously. I hope.)
The problem is, no one is talking about this, so we see all sorts of seemingly-unrelated things breaking down, and without understanding the common thread, it just looks more and more confusing. But when you look at the Baby Boom generation at the center of it all, it becomes a lot clearer.
What I see when I look at the big picture is a government desperately trying to keep a lid on the situation, because when you look at all sorts of basic societal factors in the USA, you see the same overall picture as the last time a major generation began to withdraw from the economy, back in the 1930s, and we all know how enormous of a mess that turned into. And how it ended: the US wasn't the only country affected by the great population crunches that precipitated the Great Depression, and the economic problems led directly to World War II. (Which led directly to the Baby Boom...)
Yes, a lot of the things that various governments and corporations are doing today are ugly. But I think we can all agree that they're a lot less ugly than a second Great Depression, culminating in World War III. It's interesting what a difference a broader perspective can make.
Utah may have a reputation of having "a prevailing religion," but it's important to separate stereotypes from reality. My sister lives out there, and the truth is a lot more complicated.
Things have changed quite a bit since the days of Brigham Young. Less than half of Utahns are Mormons, and a good percentage of those who are are "cultural Mormons" only, who don't actively participate in the religious aspects.
Despite this, they do wield a good degree of influence in local and state politics, and one point where this is quite evident is that various vices are much harder to obtain in Utah than in other states. If I had to interpret the figures given above, I wouldn't pin the high rates of porn consumption on the Mormons at all; I'd say it's almost certainly the rest of the Utahns, who have trouble finding more local sources of satisfaction.
The interesting thing about the DES changes is that, while a bunch of people at first thought the NSA was weakening the standard, it later came out that their changes actually strengthened DES by making it more resistant to a cutting-edge cryptoanalytic technique that no one outside of DES and IBM knew existed at the time. But they figured it would get discovered by someone else eventually, and acted proactively to help secure the standard.
It's a shame they're not still in that line of work anymore.
Alternate interpretation: Google knew that Rockstar was being formed as a patent trolling organization, and wanted nothing to do with such a filthy business. Instead, they tried to acquire the patents to keep them out of the hands of the trolls.
Unlike Apple and Microsoft, Google does *not* have a long record of suing people over patents. I don't agree with everything they do, but in this particular case they're clearly the good guys.
Yeah, that's the problem. When you define formal enemies exclusively as other nations, it ignores vast swaths of today's reality. Today, the simple reality is that a lot of companies, and various entities within our own government, are openly at war with the American people. Their weapon of choice, though, is not physical force, but economic force, which is just as harmful but far more insidious.
The question then becomes, how do you define an enemy? It seems to me that any government that
1) takes money out of my pocket to bail out fraudsters and criminals instead of spending (a much smaller amount of) my money to prosecute them and lock them up 2) speaks of strong values of transparency but persecutes whistleblowers instead of honoring them 3) seeks to illegally sign treaties that are opposed by its people and against their interest 4) actively works to undermine and remove legal protections for the traditional moral values that have made our country strong 5) notices fights between predatory banks and common people, and intervenes on the side of the banks 6) prints money at hyperinflationary rates 7) spies on its own people and then lies about it
...is an enemy of its people, and thus of the country, which is defined by the canonical document establishing this country as being comprised of "We The People".