Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Regardless, the explanation is a true enough one. Conservative thought is obsessed with exclusivity attained through hierarchy. Law-abiding, executive lifestyle, prestigious academy, heaven for Christ's Platinum cardholders and eternal hellfire for the rest of humanity all the way back to Australopithecus.

The reason conservatives treat proposed changes to society like grifts is because, well, that's the only reason they'd try to change something! So even if they can't figure out why exactly abolishing late fees for library books would cheat them out of the Upper Hellslum they stole fair and square and see them plunge into the Lower Hellslum, this is the framework by which they've decided reality functions and so it must be true somehow.

[McTraveller]

It's really difficult to live in a world where the word Conservative is spelled the same as conservative.  I'm a conservative person, but not a Conservative.  But because it's the same word, I feel ostracized whenever people make observations about Conservatives.

 

[Doomblade187]

It's really difficult to live in a world where the word Conservative is spelled the same as conservative.  I'm a conservative person, but not a Conservative.  But because it's the same word, I feel ostracized whenever people make observations about Conservatives.

 

It does help to expound what defines the word for you, I think. Hell, come up with your own descriptor! Don't be bound by language.

[Iduno]

What we need are communities that aren't built by developers looking to make a quick buck, but rather by the people who are going to live in them, and which by design include features that make them pleasant to live in and sustainable for generations. Above all, this must be the dominant living style, or else its greatest benifits aren't available; thus, it must be available to all people, not just the rich.

I am not an urban usability expert, but I do know that those features are not found in the way cities and rural areas are currently managed.

That's a reasonable suggestion, which is why it's not going to work. As soon as one developer complains that you're taking food away from their children, politicians will sell everyone else out.

As an aside, good luck to everyone meeting relatives for Thanksgiving.

Eh...it worked itself out.

[PTTG??]

What we need are communities that aren't built by developers looking to make a quick buck, but rather by the people who are going to live in them, and which by design include features that make them pleasant to live in and sustainable for generations. Above all, this must be the dominant living style, or else its greatest benifits aren't available; thus, it must be available to all people, not just the rich.

I am not an urban usability expert, but I do know that those features are not found in the way cities and rural areas are currently managed.

That's a reasonable suggestion, which is why it's not going to work. As soon as one developer complains that you're taking food away from their children, politicians will sell everyone else out.

I appreciate the agreement, but I feel that cynicism to the point of not even trying is a failing strategy for fairly obvious reasons.

Anyway, is there some way that we can go past not voting for Bloomberg? For one thing, we can't have a guy running for office with his own personal news media.

[Iduno]

I appreciate the agreement, but I feel that cynicism to the point of not even trying is a failing strategy for fairly obvious reasons.

I like the idea, and would support it. I'm also just aware of how things would turn out.

Anyway, is there some way that we can go past not voting for Bloomberg? For one thing, we can't have a guy running for office with his own personal news media.

Can we vote for him to live on the surface of the sun? Or not. Once he's there, he's the sun's problem.

[Naturegirl1999]

I appreciate the agreement, but I feel that cynicism to the point of not even trying is a failing strategy for fairly obvious reasons.

I like the idea, and would support it. I'm also just aware of how things would turn out.

Anyway, is there some way that we can go past not voting for Bloomberg? For one thing, we can't have a guy running for office with his own personal news media.

Can we vote for him to live on the surface of the sun? Or not. Once he's there, he's the sun's problem.

He would likely die from suffocation before even getting near the sun. Also, the sun would vaporize him long before he gets there. Also, if the idea is death, placing him on Venus would be cheaper

[wierd]

But that contaminates a planet that might harbor unusual life, making further science there less valuable. He's not worth that cost.

At least until we definitively rule out exotic microbiota over there, He should definitely enjoy a summer vacation closer to the sun. Like, ON the sun.

[wierd]

So, the DHS has decided that the best way to protect American rights and safety, is to jeopardize both.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/02/homeland-security-face-recognition-airport-citizens/



Can we please end this madness?  Please?

[scriver]

Anyway, is there some way that we can go past not voting for Bloomberg? For one thing, we can't have a guy running for office with his own personal news media.

*bunga bunga intensifies*

[McTraveller]

Eh, I'm not going to assume the hubris necessary to think my own definition of a word is the definition of a word. I believe in the concept of common understandings of words to promote communication, not conflict.  I just have to practice not taking things personally when associated with a group other than that with I'd prefer association.

Regarding facial recognition: The trouble with "security" is that it's a really hard problem.  How do you balance prevention against reaction?  At what point does automated surveillance become worse than "in person" surveillance?  Can you have security without surveillance?  How do you balance security surveillance versus general surveillance?  I don't have answers to these, and there are many differing opinions.

[Iduno]

Eh, I'm not going to assume the hubris necessary to think my own definition of a word is the definition of a word. I believe in the concept of common understandings of words to promote communication, not conflict.  I just have to practice not taking things personally when associated with a group other than that with I'd prefer association.

Regarding facial recognition: The trouble with "security" is that it's a really hard problem.  How do you balance prevention against reaction?  At what point does automated surveillance become worse than "in person" surveillance?  Can you have security without surveillance?  How do you balance security surveillance versus general surveillance?  I don't have answers to these, and there are many differing opinions.

Using airport security as an example: Neither the shoe bomber nor the underwear bomber (both named for where they were keeping explosives) were caught by all of the new security procedures that have been added since 2001. They made it through the perv scanners, x-rays, pat-downs, etc. They were caught because human guards saw them acting weird, because apparently blowing yourself up is something to be nervous about.

[Kagus]

Then there were the Homeland Security tests carried out a few years ago, where about 80% of the weapons, explosives and contraband made it all the way through security.

I believe the head of TSA stepped down after that fiasco was published.

[wierd]

Security theater is not about actual security.

It's about keeping up the appearances of "DOING SOMETHING!!" to save face-- AND getting a "Useful" secondary service for the intelligence agencies in the bargain. (national databases of citizens' DNA, face pattern data, et al.)

East Germany would have had a hardon for this kind of shit.  Why we allow it in the US is completely beyond me. 

[Iduno]

Given the chance, the US will always choose the most authoritarian option, followed by whatever punishes people for being poor most.