Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 716

by alexo (#47704411) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Sorry, being forced to "tolerate" someone is, for me, functionally indistinct from being forced to approve of them. I will not sit by idly and let disgusting bullshit happen just because it's now politically correct to do so.

That's OK, as long as you don't complain when somebody bigger/stronger/better-armed/better-connected considers your behaviour to be "disgusting bullshit" and will not sit idly and let it happen.

It's up to us to resist it with all our strength, and acknowledging and king of tolerance for the enemy's ideology goes against that. Liberalism is a disease and must be fought as such.

See above. Some day you will find yourself on the receiving side. And when that day comes (and it will), just remember that you have defined the rules of engagement and don't run crying to "Liberal" organizations to protect you.

Comment: Re:Potheads assemble! (Score 1) 178

by alexo (#47678075) Attached to: Hemp Fibers Make Better Supercapacitors Than Graphene

A while ago I spent some time in a mental facility and one of the patients there was that unlucky 1 in 700,000 who was vulnerable to the psychotic effects that marijuana could cause.

As compared to:

As many as 600,000 Canadians (1 - 2% of the overall population) are thought to be at risk of anaphylaxis stemming from food and insect allergy.

So what's you point exactly? That marijuana is approximately 10,000 times safer than food?

Comment: Re:Where? (Score 1) 232

by alexo (#47670589) Attached to: Fugitive Child Sex Abuser Caught By Face-Recognition Technology

For example, the killing of the Jews in the 3rd Reich was legal.

No, it wasn't.

Crimes against Jews -- especially those committed by officials of the state -- were ignored by people who were responsible for enforcing the laws in Nazi Germany but at no point did the Nazis change the criminal code to say: "by the way, you totally can kill all the Jews you want".

As if selective prosecution is not prevalent in the US...

Comment: Re:It's tinfoil time! (Score 1) 232

by alexo (#47670563) Attached to: Fugitive Child Sex Abuser Caught By Face-Recognition Technology

Kinda funny, then, that bankrupt regimes with 1980s era electronics are orders of magnitude better at this "oppression" thing than our own high-tech governments.

The US government has it's citizens barely able to control their bowels due to unfounded fear of terrorism. Dissidents are corralled into "free speech zones" or simply ignored. Everyone is being watched - what they do online, where they go (phone tracking), who they communicate with. The government actively monitors and attempts to disrupt dissent online via operations against sites such as Slashdot. What little protection US citizens have in law is easily bypassed by having foreign partners such as GCHQ operate against them on the NSA's behalf. There are secret courts designed to prevent proper oversight and scrutiny.

There is little difference between the two main parties, and the people with the real power don't change even when they do. Americans have very little real democratic influence.

The US has outdone all those oppressive regimes and most of its citizens don't even realize what has happened. Rather than an unstable, overtly violent system of control the US has found a way to almost completely subdue the population without the risk of being overthrown.

Mod parent up please, this opinion deserves higher visibility.

Comment: Re:It's tinfoil time! (Score 2) 232

by alexo (#47670541) Attached to: Fugitive Child Sex Abuser Caught By Face-Recognition Technology

Our government doesn't yet have enough political power to safely brutalize its general population (though it's doing an increasingly good job on minorities), but it can control most of us never-the-less.

Your government doesn't need to brutalize its general population in order to control it.
And, as you have noted yourself, it does resort to brutalizing when dealing with less compliant groups.

Comment: Re:Amtrack should be working on (Score 1) 127

by alexo (#47658673) Attached to: DEA Paid Amtrak Employee To Pilfer Passenger Lists

Ignorant? Really?

Bigoted against tranny prostitites? On government transportation that the public rides on? HELL, yes. Publicly visited transport should be free of this filth. You're a complete fucktard for thinking this is not completely fucking disgusting and actually supporting it's actions. Just because some assclown wants to pretend it's a woman, that certainly means that it isn't. Get that seedy shit off of national transportation that people have to pay to be on. Clown.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Comment: Re:Which company is next in line? (Score 1) 353

by alexo (#47633777) Attached to: Microsoft Tip Leads To Child Porn Arrest In Pennsylvania

They don't hash the raw file itself they construct a specialised hash based on the image content. It breaks the image up into chunks, analyses those chunks and generates a hash from that analysis. The intent being to make it resilient to cropping, scaling and colour changes.

The geek in me wants to know the algorithm(s) it uses so I can detect similar but not-quite-identical images in a collection. The (free) programs that I tried so far were stumped by cropping or colour changes or both.

Comment: Re:doesn't matter (Score 1) 176

by alexo (#47566183) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

Unless the law will include criminal penalties it's of no value.

It's interesting how laws made to limit non-government workers *always* have the criminal penalties, and laws that are made to limit government workers always conveniently forget that part. When we start jailing people who break laws like this we'll start making headway.

This. A 1000 times this!

Comment: Re:Anybody know? (Score 1) 234

by alexo (#47557945) Attached to: Free Copy of the Sims 2 Contains SecuROM

No, SecuROM does not damage a computer in any way.

SecuROM Frequently Asked Questions

So, if the a copy of SecuRom installed on my machine does any of the things that the FAQ specifically claims it does not, can I bring charges against the company under the unlawful computer access act (or however it is called)?

"Your attitude determines your attitude." -- Zig Ziglar, self-improvement doofus