I always interpreted it as "embrace, lock, and extend" anyway. If you fall for it, you're in. Don't fall for them, and you can still get away/defend yourself. :-) There's two more steps threatening to come up which you've managed to avoid.
It's the weekend. Enjoy. Don't look too far into anything.
Re: Re: Re: it costs Comcast the same to deliver 10 Mbps as it does to deliver 50 Mbps,
Just to be clear, Congress repeals laws, just like they pass them. Clinton approved the Congressional act to repeal ...
Yes, to really fuck up, it helps to have co-conspirators. You can spread the love/hate/blame around much more equally with them to muddy the situation.
I prefer to minimize complexity. Others appear to thrive on it. I hate that messy side of life.
Philips welcomes other brands to join as Friends of Hue ...
"... for a small subscription and handling fee."
In other words, "Crap, they're not falling for it and we're going to lose sales for our monopolistic behavior. Crap, okay, sell "Friends of Hue" status to other manufacturers (bastards!) at egregious prices and we'll try to find less obvious ways to enforce our monopolistic tendencies to eventually cut them out of our market. Fscking standards!"
I wonder why it took Philips this long to twig to Microsoft's "Embrace and extend" strategy. Kinda slow on their part. Perhaps the two markets are so different there were few ideas crossing between them.
Strictly, you shouldn't ever parallel park or reverse using a rearview mirror because they don't give a true image. You should, technically, look over your shoulder.
This is the esoteric skill we're talking about here. Seeing an image in a rear-view mirror and having your mind still able to manage things, even if it's mirror imaged. I would of course include shoulder checking in the mix of this (thanks for mentioning it).
One of my eyes is growing a cataract. I (mostly; yes it's annoying) don't care, because the other eye works fine and the brain adapts and makes up for the loss of the other eye. Consequently, despite the loss of most of the use of my left eye, I can still see a computer screen and read books.
Similarly, you can teach yourself to look in a mirror and understand left == right, and vice versa. It takes some time and effort to really wrap your mind around it so it's second nature, but it's not that hard to do. It used to be SOP for everyone so how difficult can it be (even if some did it badly)? Many nowadays think it's not worth the effort when tech is being sold which purports to replace it.
Which is great, if you can afford the expense of the system, and what happens when the system fails/breaks? It's complex, after all, with wires, sensors, a controller, and software/drivers in between. Mine will continue working. Will theirs?
That being said, in many cars and vans, you can't see anything either way, and reversing sensors and cameras are a massive help.
You need to concede that automobiles are sold oft-times on "sexiness" and size of windows enters into that design. Thank gawd they came up with this reversing camera system !@#$ or they wouldn't have been able to come up with that unusable tiny rear window (etc., etc.). I will concede they allow you to avoid the time and tedium of learning to use mirrors effectively, but that's all.
That, and you're suckers for falling for it if you did. Sorry, but often the truth hurts. You could have avoided all of this complexity and expense by learning an easy to acquire skill, but instead you chose to throw money at the problem to get a sexy car with an unusable rear window. Your choice, and good luck with that.
Work within the democratic system to get enough people on side to build consensus. If they won't join you when you're all decent and law-abiding, they're not going to if you get all rowdy and violent.
There were a few British loyalists who were saying pretty much the same thing back in 1776. There were a lot of Jews in the 1930s who said the same thing about the Nazis.
I've been saying for years that the Jews should've been shivving every Nazi they could find or potting them with a sniper rifle, or fighting back like the Jews in Sobibor, instead of passively marching into the showers in Auschwitz et al, but too many still believe negotiation and patience is the only course open to the civilized.
I don't have a lot of nice things to say about Zionists, but at least they learned the folly of passivism in the face of murderous predators.
So what do we call these judges, then? I'm thinking "Neoreactionary" might be a good fit ...
We called them part of "The Establishment" (or "existing order", or even "The Man" :-) back in the '60s. Their job as they see it is to uphold the status quo. It's the social societal version of the "stasis field" from Sci-Fi.
Ignorant fools can't accept that the only constant is change.
Beware the corrupting influence of the profit motive.
Oh yeah! It might make you want to make your customers even happier than they already are with you. You might be tempted to improve your products/services or shave down the cost of producing them so they want or can afford more of them or, gawd forbid, they might tell their friends that you do good work. Aiiiiieeee! You might even (Pthoooo!) get rich! Mein Gott!?!
Or, was there another corrupting influence that you were thinking of? The only other ones I can think of involve bribing politicians for preferential regulations and laws that lock out competition.
Or, can the simplistic, moldy old Marxist epithets which never made a lick of sense the first time some envious twit propounded them.
You've just explained capitalism as it was explained to me by a right-wing "free market" enthusiast.
"Right-wing" (or "left-wing") is a meaningless phrase to me, however you could call me a "free market enthusiast" (I'm pretty much a "Randroid"). I've always believed if you act a la P. T. Barnum ("there's a sucker born every minute") you're very quickly going to run out of repeat customers, and previous customers are going to spread the word to your potential customers not to trust you. Barnum's strategy should buy you early bankruptcy, in a perfect world.
It's very frustrating to those like me who think this way that it no longer appears to work. It astonishes me that Walmart is still in business. They sell crap that after one use is fit only for recycling or a landfill, yet people keep shopping there anyway.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (free market forces) appears to have lost a wrist-wrestling match with the "mailed fist in a velvet glove" (gov't directed mixed market planned economy).
Thanks. :-) It is an interesting, educational vignette. I'd never heard of Osram, and though I'd read some mumbling about lightbulb planned obsolescence, I'd no idea it was this institutionalized and multi-national, and that it went back as far as the 1920s. Meanwhile, GE & Philips have just kept on rolling along, la de daa, de daa.
Depressing, but enlightening. No pun intended, honest.
Try spotting the toddler, or family pet close behind any vehicle using mirrors only ...
You guys are completely missing the point. My argument in two words is "situation awareness." I'm not Batman leaping into my car, slamming it into gear, and burning rubber with a "Hi-yo Silver, away!"
I walk around my car with my eyes open checking out the scenery and everything that's happening in the vicinity. Once in the car, I can update that by checking the mirrors.
No toddler is going to have a chance to sneak up on me where he'll get smushed because I didn't know he was there.
"Void areas" are irrelevant if you already know what's in them, or possibly can get in them. If I see any potential victims in the area via this procedure, I make sure I know where they are and stay where I am until I do.
This is not rocket science. You people are insisting that your expensive high-tech solution is necessary to solve the problem when it isn't. Technology can solve many problems. There are many problems that *shouldn't* be solved with technology for various reasons.
People like to sneer and dismiss Stallman as some sort of long-haired, hippy radical.
... Which he is. However, I tend to sneer at people who say that. Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin could've been called the long haired hippie radicals of their time. Even Barry Goldwater defended extremism in defence of liberty, and he was certainly no hippie.
I can respect the stereotypical Marine Corp or Airborne grunt, and even cops, for their ability and devotion to duty, but it's tough to give them more than that when they blindly follow orders they damned well shouldn't.
The internet was supposed to free us from outdated social norms enforced by our government. So far, it appears just to have given the government more ammunition to go after this week's disfavored group.
Back in the mid '90s, lurking around cypherpunks, it was commonly believed that the authorities thought they'd let it get out of control with the many to many anarchic nature of the net, and they'd eventually push to lock it back down under its control. It's taken twenty years so far and though they've messed it up quite a bit, it's still pretty much many to many anarchy. Personally, I think they're poking a tiger with a stick and the tiger's not quite annoyed enough yet to bother doing anything about it. That could change overnight.
So far, the LEOs have had fairly pathetic success against manufactured FBI plots and doofuses like Dread Pirate Roberts & Silk Road. However, they can't even catch terrorist plots like Paris happening unencrypted right under their noses. That's abysmal incompetence at best, or sheer bloody minded laziness at worst.
All the NSA appears to care about is building a bigger haystack and helping its buddies in the DEA fsck up miserably. They're making the War On Drugs look sillier every day.
I doubt anyone out here has much to worry about based on that level of performance. They're incompetent and lazy and (as much as I respect what he's done) even a low level drone like Snowden can take them to the cleaners, and has repeatedly.
Big Brother didn't rely on brilliance and technical excellence. He relied on fear and brutality. That's our greatest worry, that they can justify things to themselves like "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) and flushing the Constitution for "National Security" purposes. What they think they'll end up with that's worth having, I don't know. I wouldn't want it.
Personally, I like to take heart in the fact that, "They'll be dead soon." :-)
But at the same time the internet itself as a way of communication is saving a lot of trees from being cut down for paper ...
Pretty much all of the trees that are cut down for such things are farmed "weed trees" (they grow as fast as weeds and are essentially worthless for every other use), not old growth forests.
But with regard to drug business, there really are close to no "innocent" victims without some involvement of their own.
Sadly, that's not true. The "War On Drugs" has been allowed to spill over onto almost anyone. Just walking down the street, or carrying a bag of cash on a train or plane or driving a vehicle, lets the cops assume "proceeds of illicit drugs" leading to civil asset forfeiture, and you have to fight to get it back whether or not you've ever been involved with illicit drugs.
Either way, you need to teach law enforcement that it has to heed the laws. But it's much harder to go through with when victims are present in court.
You mean when they're in court trying to prove their cash, their car, or other property is innocent and should never have been taken in the first place?
The law is an ass and the cure is worse than the disease. They had to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of Prohibition 1.0. What's Prohibition 2.0 cost so far? I suspect it's incalculable considering all the lives it's crushed under boot heels all around the world.
The only people who benefit from the laws are the drug lords.
Drug lords have benefited by being able to charge premium prices because illicit drugs are illegal. The LEOs have benefited richly in toys and numbers of personnel. Politicians have benefited richly from having an easy "for the children" campaign issue. The corporate owned and administered prison system is swimming in cash the former provide it to house the losers. Pretty much all of them benefit from a ridiculously relaxed legal system that encourages the "White Hats" to try anything they think might succeed in their favor.
Without propping up the drug lords' incentives, none of the rest would have been possible. It's quite the scam. Al Capone would've loved it. I expect he would've invested his profits in the prison system as his long term hedge.
Re: Re: Re: Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
More likely they'll just try and find a more agreeable judge for future cases, one who's more willing to overlook 'procedural issues' if it means throwing the book at a druggie/dealer.
I've got to wonder where these guys (judge & prosecutor) got their training. Reading stories like this sounds like they think it's just a game. Roll this dice, or press this button, ... They read the instructions so they think they understand the repercussions of their actions.
However, they've completely ignored the big picture questions like "Why?" They appear to have completely missed that "nation of laws, not of men" stuff and are just working to build up their score because that's what they learned it was all about. Whoever hired them is incompetent and to blame for allowing messes like this to happen.
Can't you make more of an effort to build consensus among your peers and work within the democratic system?
What "democratic system?" Obviously, you know that the system we have now is no longer democratic. The front runners for the presidency are Clinton and Trump, ffs. Look at who the Brits just re-elected. Look at France's response to "Je suis Charlie"; both, civil rights into the dumpster.
Do you reason with a female bear as she storms down on you for getting between her and her cubs? To reason with someone presumes they're reasonable. It's pretty obvious to me that they're not. I'm not sure they're still capable of it even if they were inclined to, which they aren't.
You also shouldn't presume that random net revolutionaries will do nothing. They may not be the spark, but we'll all be part of the flame that results. Revolution will be ugly and lots of people will get hurt and killed, but pacifism in the face of violent predators will only get you killed quicker.
Mahatma Gandhi and MLK were wonderful people, but (most of) their opponents were capable of being reasonable. Our 21st century wanna-be-tyrants want it all yesterday, and resent our protestations. They're tired of being reasonable and are unwilling to tolerate the "slow and steady wins the race" strategy any longer. Everything they do these days screams that.
On the post: 'Intelligence Professional' Says NSA Deserves Trust, Power And Its Bulk Phone Metadata Collection Back
Re: Re: Here's some legal guidance, free of charge
I've worked perfectly respectable gigs (computer geek, sysadmin, code hacker, ...) where job #1 was "break into this system."
I did it. It was their system. Nobody died. The devil's always in the details.
On the post: Light Bulb DRM: Philips Locks Purchasers Out Of Third-Party Bulbs With Firmware Update
Re: Re: Re: hue lighting
I always interpreted it as "embrace, lock, and extend" anyway. If you fall for it, you're in. Don't fall for them, and you can still get away/defend yourself. :-) There's two more steps threatening to come up which you've managed to avoid.
It's the weekend. Enjoy. Don't look too far into anything.
On the post: Comcast CEO: It's Not A Broadband Cap, It's A 'Balanced Relationship'
Re: Re: Re: it costs Comcast the same to deliver 10 Mbps as it does to deliver 50 Mbps,
Yes, to really fuck up, it helps to have co-conspirators. You can spread the love/hate/blame around much more equally with them to muddy the situation.
I prefer to minimize complexity. Others appear to thrive on it. I hate that messy side of life.
On the post: Light Bulb DRM: Philips Locks Purchasers Out Of Third-Party Bulbs With Firmware Update
Re: hue lighting
"... for a small subscription and handling fee."
In other words, "Crap, they're not falling for it and we're going to lose sales for our monopolistic behavior. Crap, okay, sell "Friends of Hue" status to other manufacturers (bastards!) at egregious prices and we'll try to find less obvious ways to enforce our monopolistic tendencies to eventually cut them out of our market. Fscking standards!"
I wonder why it took Philips this long to twig to Microsoft's "Embrace and extend" strategy. Kinda slow on their part. Perhaps the two markets are so different there were few ideas crossing between them.
On the post: Dave Chappelle Thinks A Sock And A Dream Will Keep People From Using Phones At Shows
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the esoteric skill we're talking about here. Seeing an image in a rear-view mirror and having your mind still able to manage things, even if it's mirror imaged. I would of course include shoulder checking in the mix of this (thanks for mentioning it).
One of my eyes is growing a cataract. I (mostly; yes it's annoying) don't care, because the other eye works fine and the brain adapts and makes up for the loss of the other eye. Consequently, despite the loss of most of the use of my left eye, I can still see a computer screen and read books.
Similarly, you can teach yourself to look in a mirror and understand left == right, and vice versa. It takes some time and effort to really wrap your mind around it so it's second nature, but it's not that hard to do. It used to be SOP for everyone so how difficult can it be (even if some did it badly)? Many nowadays think it's not worth the effort when tech is being sold which purports to replace it.
Which is great, if you can afford the expense of the system, and what happens when the system fails/breaks? It's complex, after all, with wires, sensors, a controller, and software/drivers in between. Mine will continue working. Will theirs?
You need to concede that automobiles are sold oft-times on "sexiness" and size of windows enters into that design. Thank gawd they came up with this reversing camera system !@#$ or they wouldn't have been able to come up with that unusable tiny rear window (etc., etc.). I will concede they allow you to avoid the time and tedium of learning to use mirrors effectively, but that's all.
That, and you're suckers for falling for it if you did. Sorry, but often the truth hurts. You could have avoided all of this complexity and expense by learning an easy to acquire skill, but instead you chose to throw money at the problem to get a sexy car with an unusable rear window. Your choice, and good luck with that.
On the post: Supreme Court Again Makes It Clear: Companies Can Erode Your Legal Rights Via Mouse Print
Re: Re:
There were a few British loyalists who were saying pretty much the same thing back in 1776. There were a lot of Jews in the 1930s who said the same thing about the Nazis.
I've been saying for years that the Jews should've been shivving every Nazi they could find or potting them with a sniper rifle, or fighting back like the Jews in Sobibor, instead of passively marching into the showers in Auschwitz et al, but too many still believe negotiation and patience is the only course open to the civilized.
I don't have a lot of nice things to say about Zionists, but at least they learned the folly of passivism in the face of murderous predators.
On the post: Supreme Court Again Makes It Clear: Companies Can Erode Your Legal Rights Via Mouse Print
Re: Re:
We called them part of "The Establishment" (or "existing order", or even "The Man" :-) back in the '60s. Their job as they see it is to uphold the status quo. It's the social societal version of the "stasis field" from Sci-Fi.
Ignorant fools can't accept that the only constant is change.
On the post: Supreme Court Again Makes It Clear: Companies Can Erode Your Legal Rights Via Mouse Print
Re: Re: gov't regulated arbitration
Oh yeah! It might make you want to make your customers even happier than they already are with you. You might be tempted to improve your products/services or shave down the cost of producing them so they want or can afford more of them or, gawd forbid, they might tell their friends that you do good work. Aiiiiieeee! You might even (Pthoooo!) get rich! Mein Gott!?!
Or, was there another corrupting influence that you were thinking of? The only other ones I can think of involve bribing politicians for preferential regulations and laws that lock out competition.
Or, can the simplistic, moldy old Marxist epithets which never made a lick of sense the first time some envious twit propounded them.
On the post: Supreme Court Again Makes It Clear: Companies Can Erode Your Legal Rights Via Mouse Print
Free market capitalism.
"Right-wing" (or "left-wing") is a meaningless phrase to me, however you could call me a "free market enthusiast" (I'm pretty much a "Randroid"). I've always believed if you act a la P. T. Barnum ("there's a sucker born every minute") you're very quickly going to run out of repeat customers, and previous customers are going to spread the word to your potential customers not to trust you. Barnum's strategy should buy you early bankruptcy, in a perfect world.
It's very frustrating to those like me who think this way that it no longer appears to work. It astonishes me that Walmart is still in business. They sell crap that after one use is fit only for recycling or a landfill, yet people keep shopping there anyway.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (free market forces) appears to have lost a wrist-wrestling match with the "mailed fist in a velvet glove" (gov't directed mixed market planned economy).
On the post: Light Bulb DRM: Philips Locks Purchasers Out Of Third-Party Bulbs With Firmware Update
Re: Re: Re: Re: Osram invented "planned obsolescence"
Thanks. :-) It is an interesting, educational vignette. I'd never heard of Osram, and though I'd read some mumbling about lightbulb planned obsolescence, I'd no idea it was this institutionalized and multi-national, and that it went back as far as the 1920s. Meanwhile, GE & Philips have just kept on rolling along, la de daa, de daa.
Depressing, but enlightening. No pun intended, honest.
On the post: Dave Chappelle Thinks A Sock And A Dream Will Keep People From Using Phones At Shows
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys are completely missing the point. My argument in two words is "situation awareness." I'm not Batman leaping into my car, slamming it into gear, and burning rubber with a "Hi-yo Silver, away!"
I walk around my car with my eyes open checking out the scenery and everything that's happening in the vicinity. Once in the car, I can update that by checking the mirrors.
No toddler is going to have a chance to sneak up on me where he'll get smushed because I didn't know he was there.
"Void areas" are irrelevant if you already know what's in them, or possibly can get in them. If I see any potential victims in the area via this procedure, I make sure I know where they are and stay where I am until I do.
This is not rocket science. You people are insisting that your expensive high-tech solution is necessary to solve the problem when it isn't. Technology can solve many problems. There are many problems that *shouldn't* be solved with technology for various reasons.
On the post: DOJ Still Not Informing Defendants About Sources Of Surveillance Program-Derived Evidence Being Used Against Them
Re: king
On the post: Light Bulb DRM: Philips Locks Purchasers Out Of Third-Party Bulbs With Firmware Update
Re: Re: Re:
... Which he is. However, I tend to sneer at people who say that. Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin could've been called the long haired hippie radicals of their time. Even Barry Goldwater defended extremism in defence of liberty, and he was certainly no hippie.
I can respect the stereotypical Marine Corp or Airborne grunt, and even cops, for their ability and devotion to duty, but it's tough to give them more than that when they blindly follow orders they damned well shouldn't.
On the post: DOJ Still Not Informing Defendants About Sources Of Surveillance Program-Derived Evidence Being Used Against Them
Re: Keep Your Head Down
Back in the mid '90s, lurking around cypherpunks, it was commonly believed that the authorities thought they'd let it get out of control with the many to many anarchic nature of the net, and they'd eventually push to lock it back down under its control. It's taken twenty years so far and though they've messed it up quite a bit, it's still pretty much many to many anarchy. Personally, I think they're poking a tiger with a stick and the tiger's not quite annoyed enough yet to bother doing anything about it. That could change overnight.
So far, the LEOs have had fairly pathetic success against manufactured FBI plots and doofuses like Dread Pirate Roberts & Silk Road. However, they can't even catch terrorist plots like Paris happening unencrypted right under their noses. That's abysmal incompetence at best, or sheer bloody minded laziness at worst.
All the NSA appears to care about is building a bigger haystack and helping its buddies in the DEA fsck up miserably. They're making the War On Drugs look sillier every day.
I doubt anyone out here has much to worry about based on that level of performance. They're incompetent and lazy and (as much as I respect what he's done) even a low level drone like Snowden can take them to the cleaners, and has repeatedly.
Big Brother didn't rely on brilliance and technical excellence. He relied on fear and brutality. That's our greatest worry, that they can justify things to themselves like "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) and flushing the Constitution for "National Security" purposes. What they think they'll end up with that's worth having, I don't know. I wouldn't want it.
Personally, I like to take heart in the fact that, "They'll be dead soon." :-)
On the post: Comcast CEO: It's Not A Broadband Cap, It's A 'Balanced Relationship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: need or want (repost)
Pretty much all of the trees that are cut down for such things are farmed "weed trees" (they grow as fast as weeds and are essentially worthless for every other use), not old growth forests.
Sorry for yet another bubble being burst.
On the post: DEA Loses Big Drug Case, Thanks To Illegal Wiretap Warrants Prosecutor Calls 'Procedural Errors'
Re: Well, something the war on drugs is good for
Sadly, that's not true. The "War On Drugs" has been allowed to spill over onto almost anyone. Just walking down the street, or carrying a bag of cash on a train or plane or driving a vehicle, lets the cops assume "proceeds of illicit drugs" leading to civil asset forfeiture, and you have to fight to get it back whether or not you've ever been involved with illicit drugs.
You mean when they're in court trying to prove their cash, their car, or other property is innocent and should never have been taken in the first place?
The law is an ass and the cure is worse than the disease. They had to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of Prohibition 1.0. What's Prohibition 2.0 cost so far? I suspect it's incalculable considering all the lives it's crushed under boot heels all around the world.
On the post: DEA Loses Big Drug Case, Thanks To Illegal Wiretap Warrants Prosecutor Calls 'Procedural Errors'
Re: Helios Hernandez
Sun Yat Sen's parents?
On the post: DEA Loses Big Drug Case, Thanks To Illegal Wiretap Warrants Prosecutor Calls 'Procedural Errors'
Re:
Drug lords have benefited by being able to charge premium prices because illicit drugs are illegal. The LEOs have benefited richly in toys and numbers of personnel. Politicians have benefited richly from having an easy "for the children" campaign issue. The corporate owned and administered prison system is swimming in cash the former provide it to house the losers. Pretty much all of them benefit from a ridiculously relaxed legal system that encourages the "White Hats" to try anything they think might succeed in their favor.
Without propping up the drug lords' incentives, none of the rest would have been possible. It's quite the scam. Al Capone would've loved it. I expect he would've invested his profits in the prison system as his long term hedge.
On the post: DEA Loses Big Drug Case, Thanks To Illegal Wiretap Warrants Prosecutor Calls 'Procedural Errors'
Re: Re: Re: Exactly the sort of mindset you want in a DA
I've got to wonder where these guys (judge & prosecutor) got their training. Reading stories like this sounds like they think it's just a game. Roll this dice, or press this button, ... They read the instructions so they think they understand the repercussions of their actions.
However, they've completely ignored the big picture questions like "Why?" They appear to have completely missed that "nation of laws, not of men" stuff and are just working to build up their score because that's what they learned it was all about. Whoever hired them is incompetent and to blame for allowing messes like this to happen.
On the post: Court Says Constitutional Violations By Law Enforcement Are Perfectly Fine As Long As They Happen Quickly
Re: Re:
What "democratic system?" Obviously, you know that the system we have now is no longer democratic. The front runners for the presidency are Clinton and Trump, ffs. Look at who the Brits just re-elected. Look at France's response to "Je suis Charlie"; both, civil rights into the dumpster.
Do you reason with a female bear as she storms down on you for getting between her and her cubs? To reason with someone presumes they're reasonable. It's pretty obvious to me that they're not. I'm not sure they're still capable of it even if they were inclined to, which they aren't.
You also shouldn't presume that random net revolutionaries will do nothing. They may not be the spark, but we'll all be part of the flame that results. Revolution will be ugly and lots of people will get hurt and killed, but pacifism in the face of violent predators will only get you killed quicker.
Mahatma Gandhi and MLK were wonderful people, but (most of) their opponents were capable of being reasonable. Our 21st century wanna-be-tyrants want it all yesterday, and resent our protestations. They're tired of being reasonable and are unwilling to tolerate the "slow and steady wins the race" strategy any longer. Everything they do these days screams that.
Next >>