The technology is a codex which is constructed from a bound stack of pages, rather than a single sheet coiled into a scroll. The new design allows access to any part of the work quickly rather than having to roll through the entire work in sequence until you get to the desired part. Codices are also easier to maintain.
A book or bōc is a journal or sketchbook to assist children in learning to read and write.
One of the problems of the codex technology is that it is really rather biodegradable, to the point our libraries once had to be staffed with transcribers to continuously restore old works onto new media. This process was improved by the use of movable type and the printing press.
These days, the codex is still used as a device for distribution, but originals are kept in digital form to be accessed by computer-controlled printing presses that can rapidly produce a run of cheap-but-efficient plastic-coated soft-bound codices for rapid dissemination. But this technology is currently being challenged due to the e-book which allows one to carry the contents of many many codices without the pesky burden.
New technologies always present new problems, but usually ones smaller than the problems they solve, otherwise, yes. People will fall back to older technologies. Ergo, drug dealers and old-fashioned not-so-smartphones that don't track them.
I don't much anymore indulge in fantasies about what should happen. Maybe more things that would be nice that I'd enjoy in the moment, but if a conspiratorial genie were to affect them, I certainly wouldn't vouch for a happy ending for us all.
When it comes to the human species learning why we don't do certain things (e.g. give absolute despotic dictatorial powers to a charismatic psychopath), I have little faith in the human animal to take such lessons to heart without a magnificent human disaster to remind us.
But in this era, I have to say that even that kind of sacrifice may be pointless, given that the US already has its own privileged caste of freikorps above the law. It also has defined its own untermenschen among the impoverished, minorities, and any other non-mainstream subsect. And the elite and their indoctrinated are certainly asking a Jewish Question, namely which of the undesirables are most objectionable, and how to get rid of them.
And Israel has shown not one bit of compassion or empathy for other peoples oppressed by another with access to a powerful military. They seem to understand that anyone who is not them can be determined to be unpersons and cluster-bombed into a neolithic existence.
Sure, old school (circa '70s women's libber) feminists did object to porn on the grounds that it might cause guys to objectify women, but that was a moral panic. Currently the issue is that porn stars and porn sex is too homogenous, which is being changed in some markets. More reasonable feminists may object to specific issues about porn, but are okay with the concept of depicting sexuality on media and are often consumers of porn, themselves.
And granted, some extremists versions of feminism (mind you there's a wide gamut) may hate porn just because. But the conservative religious sector has been raging against porn (and all things prurient or regarding human sexuality) for far longer with greater numbers behind them.
Of course, when Dotcom's home was invaded, everyone was distracted by the success of the SOPA blackout. I was the guy that informed all my friends why the raid on a New Zealand internet mogul was such a big deal and no, this one doesn't make me a crackpot either.
The Cyberlocker market never recovered, and this screams of government conspiracy to destroy a man. And Jurist O'Grady is either in on it or just plain stupid.
But stupid or corrupt, this whole case seems to be a clear marker that the DoJ is broken. Every child-rapist or bank-robber or rampage killer or terrorist in prison is now a political prisoner of the US, given the DoJ is clearly incapable of delineating right from wrong.
The notion of giving our police military hardware came from a program to make something useful of surplus and function creep.
As you know, putting police in camouflage is about as useful as dressing your ninjas like kabuki. You want law officers to be clearly visible and distinguishable, not able to blend into the background.
There were few to no guns involved on the protestors' side in Ferguson, and yet they were regarded by the containment force as if one toke of pot was all that was necessary for a black man to Hulk out and bend tanks in half. Those police officers were terrified of the Ferguson civilians despite that they were pathetically armed.
So no justification is needed. I'm still waiting for the NYPD commissioner to explain why he thinks he needs emplaced machine guns to police his crowds from demonstrators. There aren't many guns in New York City.
It's a hard and humbling lesson for those who were raised to believe that the United State was a nation who could do no wrong, who looked upon Germany and the USSR and believed it cannot happen here.
But it can happen anywhere. And even the UK who has taken more of a own-our-errors attitude with their bloody and brutal history have still sunken into a frightful surveillance and censorship state. And they have Orwell saying I told you so! from the grave.
The best thing we can do is to fix it and get past it. Fixing it is going to be hard. But remembering it is going to be even harder. Many parts of the US have an attitude that ideology is more important than accuracy when teaching history to our children.
Maybe a thorough and brutal watering of the Tree of Liberty will be enough to change their minds.
Essentially, some folks in the justice system don't like a fellow, so they go to all lengths possible to ruin him. And like Hughes, Dotcom is becoming particularly famous as an eccentric guy who has some enemies in the US justice system.
Still, the Kim Dotcom case was one of the first ones to show that our police really are only hired guns for whoever pays for them (in this case Hollywood money), rather than being directed by, oh, like the letter of the law or the safety of the people or something.
The DoJ is a mob-style syndicate, and has no more ethical standing or moral high ground than such an organization.
I think are the ones that endorse blanket surveillance, or torture, or tough-on-crime policies that get our convictions (and our prison population) to over 50% innocent are probably more treasonous and dickheaded than Snowden for revealing to the public what some of the treasonous dickheads are doing.
The US is now a torture state and a surveillance state and a corporate police state. Treason towards such a state is, as Jefferson's seal suggests, obedience to God.
They've always been conspicuously quiet about the second amendment.
I'm not saying it's right, but from what I've encountered of activist fronts, they seem universally unable to unconditionally hold to their philosophical ideals in the real world. In most cases, it appears in the way they triage their cases.
I learned this by working for certain fronts to promote specific bills only to discover they've ceased endorsing that bill (such as when gay marriage was controversial in California).
In the case of the second amendment, yeah it sucks that gun-owners rights are left by everyone else to let the NRA handle it. And the NRA is, in turn, represents the cause with a conspicuous lack of finesse or decorum.
If you put those vets with PTSD (or, really, anyone with PTSD) into an oppressive work environment, yeah, some might pop off. I can't speak in regards to the work environment in your typical precinct. I hear that one has a margarita machine.
While we've seen some studies about military forces in other parts of the world being used for police operations, and ending with less-than-optimal results, I can't speak to the correlation between the hiring of vets and, say, the police brutality problem in the US. More likely, that's just because cop is a great career path for bullies with anger-management problems, and human beings love authority so much that we find it hard to sustain oversight.
Am I saying vets with PTSD are unemployable? Of course not. But most of the PTSD victims I know (some action-hardened vets, some not) are really into not taking any shit from anyone, including bosses.