By seeing the "s" in "perpetrators." A person sees that a different criminal (not themself) went to jail, predicts that if they take similar actions they will experience a similar outcome, weighs jail negatively, and places negative number in crime column of payoff table.
As someone who is aware of my surroundings and generally conscientious, I simply turn my phone to "vibrate" or even - God forbid - OFF... It works very well indeed.
I agree with you, in this particular case. But there will be situations where I find something trivial and obvious that you find to be a pain in the ass, and vice-versa. Once person might say "I'm aware of what I'm watching and it's trivial and foolproof to press fast-forward on my Tivo remote when there's a commercial" and the other person might say "I shouldn't have to do that or think about that, when I'm trying to concentrate on the actresses' boobies, so mythfrontend should automatically commercial-skip for me." One person might say "I want a padlock icon when it is a totally sure thing (except for a glossed-over list of exceptions, all of which I want to always be un-acknowledged) there is no MitM attack, and I want lack of an icon when the certainty is less than 100.00%; I don't want to think about grey areas and degrees of certainty" and another person might prefer a realistic UI which says "MiTM is probably not happening" or "MitM is very very likely not happening" or "The level of conspiracy required for a MitM right now, has precedent." or "You only have one stranger's assurance that nothing shady is going on, and betrayal would require no conspiracy at all."
We say just a little awareness and common sense solves the problem, maybe because our phones happen to be something we sometimes think about, for whatever reasons that have emerged from our personal quirks. Someone else says "I shouldn't have to be aware of something as unimportant as the current sleep/wake state of one of my pocket computers, among the dozen items I happen to be carrying." If eyeglasses or shoes or hats sometimes spontaneously started screaming in response to external activity, that same person might want the behavior automatically suppressed at some times, whereas you and I would probably raise an eyebrow at the thought of ever buying a screaming hat in the first place, because we already have enough to worry about (our phones) without having to worry about screaming hats.
Different strokes for different folks.
Unless there are genuine state secrets lurking about the company..
Interesting that you are willing to make an exception. From here on, the strumpet and the john are just haggling over the price.
Why draw the line at "state" secrets, not some other level of secrets? Who are you to say that the exception is reasonable in that one instance and not reasonable in others?
i really REALLY don't get this obsession with linking violent video games to violent behavior.
Suppose there is a person you wish to murder, because, oh say, you're an evil piece of shit. Suppose, furthermore, that you live in a society that generally disapproves of murder (you would probably be punished if you just walked up to your victim and shot them in the head) but society does make an exception: it is ok to murder a witch.
Doesn't it make sense that you would claim that your intended victim is a witch? That's not obsession; that's strategy.
If you suck at video games and resent that other people enjoy them, or if you sell media that competes for peoples' time with video games, or if you're just plain nutty and have some weird (but irrelevant to this discussion) reason for wanting video games to go away, then you should try to convince everyone that video games are responsible for crop failures, volcanos, plagues, and of course, incidents of people going apeshit.
That's just one way it makes sense. Another: suppose someone (not you) has decided to target someone by claiming that person is a witch. You can rebut them (boring) or sit it out (even more boring) or join in the hunt. Killing witches is fun and exciting, and if you can take one down, everyone will see you as a Very Important Person. C'mon, don't you want to be the person who utters the perfect nonsense, the one thing that finally brings the mob over to the witchfinder's side?
The worst netbook is better than the best tablet. Yet the tablet market survives. Lame.
People get boners over amazingly awful garbage, but make that same machine better by putting a keyboard on it so that a simple task doesn't have to be a tedious time-wasting exercise in touchscreen typing, and then also put a non-toy, more capable OS (GNU/Linux instead of Android, or Mac OS X instead of iOS) on it, and suddenly it's not sexy anymore.
WTF is wrong with you perverts? You see a sheep and a hot babe and all you can say is "baa-aa-aahh! c'm'ere sexy baa-aa-aa-aah!" Gene Wilder's character in that Woody Allen movie was meant to be absurd, not your role model. Fuckwits.
What chance do you really think a consumer-legal weapon will have against the US armed forces?
Very little. That's an argument against the three-shot weapon idea, no?
If simulations (and common sense) show that in Government-vs-People, People will lose, then do something to the power of one or both sides. Repeat until projected outcome is that People will win.
What's funny is that (over-simplifying) Democrats propose making the People side weaker in that contest ("gun control"), and Republicans propose making the Government side stronger (strong "defense"). I think both of these folks totally misinterpreted my "do something to the power of one or both sides" suggestion, above. *facepalm* It's almost as though they're not on our side.
I have friends on FB who appear to think that our current political situation is just as dire as in the Civil War
Those people aren't arguing over anything important right now, but it should be noted that even the conflicts of the 1860s or 1770s totally pale in comparison to what happened in Germany and USSR in the 20th Century. Millions of people truly ended up in their graves at the hands of their own govenments. Seriously amazing shit can happen in real life, and you don't need fictional works to trigger your imagination. (There are so many ways to be a deluded paranoid wackjob, but knowing real history isn't one of them.)
So they're wrong, but maybe they're wrong because they're thinking so small; incited by the media into pretending the minor divisions among Republicrats are a big deal. What you might wanna think about, though, is whether their wrongness is worse or better than the everything-is-fine-let's-not-get-excited outlook. It's hard to imagine serious shit going down, but might your imagination (and mine!) have also failed, in the 1920s, to predict what ended up actually happening?
It couldn't happen here, or it couldn't happen in modern times. It couldn't happen, because
I'd go easy on those fellas. Call 'em out on their bullshit, ok, but even if when a nut stockpiles for all the wrong reasons, it isn't any worse than what all of us routinely accept and do. We all send money to Washington, where we know billions of dollars are also spent to increase weapon stockpiles orders of magnitude larger, which are just as devoid of any sensible purpose as a nutjob survivalist's gun collection. If "gun nuts" are nuts, then what are we, the people who are arming our government?
Dear Apple,
Fuck You!
Yours Sincerely,
The people who keep giving money to Apple, even after they claim to be angry.
The public is so angry at Apple, that they will severely punish Apple by suffocating them in a torrent of money. Let this vicious brutality be a lesson to others who may be contemplating evil.
When the amendment was written, what percentage of firearms were capable of holding more than three shots?
At that time, citizenry had about the same percentage of more-than-three-shot weapons, as the government did. I think both sides had somewhere around zero.
I believe the situation has changed since then, though. Perhaps I am mistaken. If you can assure me the 2012 government doesn't have any weapons with more than three shots, and doesn't have the capacity to quickly obtain more-than-three-shot weapons, I'll give the citizens-should-only-have-three-shots idea a second look.
How is it in my best interests for someone who's 4'11" to be able to attack me with equal force?
It's not. When some early hominid invented the idea of the club (and as the technological progression continued toward laser blasters) you started to lose your advantage. That's a done deal, and no law can ever change it. Sorry. You may, in fact, be attacked by a 4'11" person armed with a weapon some day, and if you are unarmed, the 4'11" person will have the advantage. Sucks to be you.
Gun laws are about whether or not (should you choose to adopt a strategy of opposing that 4'11" attacker with similar force, making a slightly better contest rather than you automatically losing) you will live in a constant state of fear from your government, considered an outlaw.
When the village idiot says "get rid of all the guns," we can all laugh him off, just as though he had said, "everyone should have a pony."
When a politician says "get rid of all the guns," he's actually seriously talking about attacking you, should you ever be detected having a gun.
I've never encountered a situation, and am at a loss for an actual, private-citizen, real-world situation, where more than 3 rounds would be necessary except in the case of an incompetent shooter (i.e. poor aim).
Of course you've never had to overthrow the government, which may involve you needing to kill twenty federal troops in one bloody day. If there had been a revolution, I would have read about it in the news. That doesn't mean you go around repealing amendments, though. You have the amendment, in order to inform/bluff everyone into knowing that twenty federal troops will die by your hand if they attack the states too directly, which strangely has the effect of the conflict never happening.
an infrastructure that can track, using users' signatures, who accesses what files from a "secure indexer"
You have to become your enemy to defeat him, huh?
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
