Myself, I'm not reminded of Prenda Law by the US Government's reaction to the Russia / Snowden thing. Of all people, their behaviour reminds me most of... Russia. Or, rather, the USSR.
Seriously, set this all thirty or forty years ago and flip the countries around, and you could write a half-decent political thriller while keeping most of the other details the same.
Re: Re: Actually, it's been backfiring for decades
There's an old story floating around about Richard Feynman, one he recounted in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". Apparently, one of his interests was safecracking, and he used to amuse himself by getting into secure document safes and locked filing cabinets.
One time, when he was at Oak Ridge National Labs, he demonstrated his little trick to this one Colonel for whom he'd written a report. He then proceeded to explain how he did it: the locks they were using for their safes and filing cabinets had a flaw that drastically reduced the number of possible combinations. Also, as long as the safe was left open, he realized he could easily figure out the last two numbers, making cracking the combination child's play. Then, while the Colonel was sitting there, stunned, he suggested that everyone at Oak Ridge start working with their safes closed to limit their vulnerability.
The next time he had to stop by the lab, he found everyone telling him to stay the hell away from their workspace when he walked by. It turns out that, rather than implementing his suggestion, the Colonel had sent around a note to everyone in the office: "During his last visit, was Mr. Feynman at any time in your office, near your office, or walking through your office?"
Anyone who said yes was told to change his combination, which was a pain in the ass to accomplish. Since nobody wanted to have to do that, and to memorize another combination again, they told him to stay away. Meanwhile, they all cheerfully kept working with their safes wide open. That's what the Colonel took away from his warning. The security hole wasn't the threat; Feynman was.
That's how a lot of security professionals react, whether computer or physical. If the Emperor's naked, they don't take it as a favour if you point it out to them. They take it as a personal attack. The security hole isn't a threat; you are. To their pride, to their reputation, to their job.
It's an old, old reaction. It's easier and safer to go after the guy pointing out the flaw than to admit they overlooked something and try to figure out how to fix it.
Even if studies showed that violent people partook of violent media, there would still be the question of whether or not the media was a causative factor. In other words, would that mean that violent media made people violent, or would it mean that those people liked it because they were already violent to begin with?
On a more serious note, my brother just pointed out that this logic would also condemn anyone who played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, or so much as picked up a G.I. Joe as a kid.
I'd add D&D to the list, but everyone knows that's just straight up devil worship anyway.
Well, then I'm screwed. Forget first person shooters, I've engaged in nuclear warfare in the Civilization games. For that matter, my usual method for conquering planets in Spore is to destroy their environment until they can't support life, then terraform them back to my liking.
Forget Hitler, I think I'm moving into Xenu territory here.
He sure would. 18 USC 2385 - Advocating Overthrow of Government. It was passed as part of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, and carries a penalty of a fine and / or up to 20 years in prison.
It's part of a regrettable episode in history where, fearing the end of the American way of life, certain laws were passed. As a result of these ill-conceived laws, the American way of life was injured and remained so until the people and their representatives came to their senses.
I remember how I felt on September 12, 2001 just as clear as day. The thing is, I know better than to make major decisions when I'm in the grip of a murderous rage.
I kinda wish Canada would give him asylum now. I doubt we'd have done it before the threat, and we almost definitely won't after the sanction threats. Still, I'd like to see if Obama has the stones to put sanctions on his biggest trading partner. On the straight numbers, we'd lose more than the 'States would, but exports to Canada are worth almost 2% of the US GDP.
And then there's the fact that the US bought almost three quarters as much oil from Canada last year as it did from all the countries in OPEC combined. Almost half again as much as it did from the entire Middle East.
It's never going to happen... but I kinda wish it would.
I can only hope that it's not just people who hang out at websites like this who are coming to the obvious conclusion. That the public in general are starting to realize why the government hides the details of court rulings or treaty negotiations from them. That it's because they're afraid of the storm of outrage that would erupt if their specifics were known. That the simple fact that they're hiding it from us is reason enough to become furious.
I look around me and I see people losing their minds over this kind of thing. I can only hope we're not alone.
I realized who I was at fifteen. I came out of the closet at sixteen which, to be honest, didn't really change much for me since kids had been calling me "faggot" since junior high. You want to tell me what I don't understand about the harmfulness of words?
The only solution to hateful speech is more speech.
Hateful speech isn't a problem in and of itself, no matter how much it hurts. It's an indicator. It's like smoke to a fire. Smoke inhalation can kill you, but until you put out the fire, the smoke is there to stay.
Hateful speech is just the indicator of hateful thoughts. You can't deal with hateful thoughts by changing legislation. You deal with hateful thoughts by changing minds, and you can only do that by engaging people and talking to them.
The idea of censoring speech because it offends us, no matter how well intentioned, is wrong. It has no place in a free and just society. None whatsoever. Why? Well, for one, because, once upon a time, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" would have offended a fair number of people.
But guess what? A great man said it, and people listened, and now his part of the world is a different place.
Once upon a time, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" would have offended a lot more people than it does now. Guess what? Today, I can live openly, adopt children, serve in the military, and marry whoever I want.
The only solution to hateful speech that's ever worked is more speech. Don't change laws. Change minds. Censorship doesn't stop being wrong because I disagree with the person being censored. Tyranny doesn't stop being tyranny because the tyrant's a nice guy.
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
"Evangelion did not create mecha in any way, shape or form."
True, but Pacific Rim still had a definite "Angels vs Evas" feel to it. Only with less teenage angst, and more slapping monsters in the face with boats.
On the subject of filtering the internet, President-Elect Hassan Rouhani of Iran seems to have recognized the futility of the exercise. He's been quoted as saying "Gone are the days when a wall could be built around the country. Today there are no more walls."
He's also asked "Which important piece of news has filtering been able to black out in recent years?" A question he apparently asked on Twitter, no less.
Is it just me, or is the Prime Minister of the UK taking a less sensible, less grounded in reality approach to the usefulness and practicality of filtering the internet than the future President of Iran?
On the post: Civil Rights Leader And Congressman John Lewis Says Ed Snowden Latest In The Line From Thoreau To Gandhi To King
Re:
Seriously, set this all thirty or forty years ago and flip the countries around, and you could write a half-decent political thriller while keeping most of the other details the same.
On the post: US Government War On Hackers Backfires: Now Top Hackers Won't Work With US Government
Re: Re: Actually, it's been backfiring for decades
One time, when he was at Oak Ridge National Labs, he demonstrated his little trick to this one Colonel for whom he'd written a report. He then proceeded to explain how he did it: the locks they were using for their safes and filing cabinets had a flaw that drastically reduced the number of possible combinations. Also, as long as the safe was left open, he realized he could easily figure out the last two numbers, making cracking the combination child's play. Then, while the Colonel was sitting there, stunned, he suggested that everyone at Oak Ridge start working with their safes closed to limit their vulnerability.
The next time he had to stop by the lab, he found everyone telling him to stay the hell away from their workspace when he walked by. It turns out that, rather than implementing his suggestion, the Colonel had sent around a note to everyone in the office: "During his last visit, was Mr. Feynman at any time in your office, near your office, or walking through your office?"
Anyone who said yes was told to change his combination, which was a pain in the ass to accomplish. Since nobody wanted to have to do that, and to memorize another combination again, they told him to stay away. Meanwhile, they all cheerfully kept working with their safes wide open. That's what the Colonel took away from his warning. The security hole wasn't the threat; Feynman was.
That's how a lot of security professionals react, whether computer or physical. If the Emperor's naked, they don't take it as a favour if you point it out to them. They take it as a personal attack. The security hole isn't a threat; you are. To their pride, to their reputation, to their job.
It's an old, old reaction. It's easier and safer to go after the guy pointing out the flaw than to admit they overlooked something and try to figure out how to fix it.
On the post: Charles Carreon Having Some Difficulties Trying To Represent His Wife In Court Over Copyright Infringement Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calm down and breath...
On the post: Sen. Rockefeller Continues His Quest To Regulate Free Speech With His 'Violent Content Research Act'
Correlation and Causation
On the post: Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy
Re: Re: In the words of Dr. Ian Malcum...,
On the post: Pat Robertson: Murder Committed In Video Games Is No Different Than Real Life Murder
I'd add D&D to the list, but everyone knows that's just straight up devil worship anyway.
On the post: Pat Robertson: Murder Committed In Video Games Is No Different Than Real Life Murder
Forget Hitler, I think I'm moving into Xenu territory here.
On the post: Congress Flips Out About 'Snowden The Traitor' As They Try To Pass Legislation To Stop The Program He Revealed
On the post: The NSA's Overreach And Lack Of Transparency Is Hurting American Businesses
Re: Re: Isn't history fun?
It's part of a regrettable episode in history where, fearing the end of the American way of life, certain laws were passed. As a result of these ill-conceived laws, the American way of life was injured and remained so until the people and their representatives came to their senses.
Why does that sound familiar?
On the post: NJ Gov. Chris Christie: Opposing NSA Surveillance Is A 'Strain Of Very Dangerous Thought'
On the post: Telco Astroturfing Tries To Bring Down Reviews Of Susan Crawford's Book
Re: Re: Now I'll Buy
On the post: Senate Appropriations Committee Approves Trade Sanctions Against Any Country That Offers Asylum To Snowden
Re:
And then there's the fact that the US bought almost three quarters as much oil from Canada last year as it did from all the countries in OPEC combined. Almost half again as much as it did from the entire Middle East.
It's never going to happen... but I kinda wish it would.
On the post: To Counter Secret Negotiations Over TPP, Coalition Sets Up Open Alternative
Houses of Cards Deserve to Fall
I look around me and I see people losing their minds over this kind of thing. I can only hope we're not alone.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Bad rulling
The only solution to hateful speech is more speech.
Hateful speech isn't a problem in and of itself, no matter how much it hurts. It's an indicator. It's like smoke to a fire. Smoke inhalation can kill you, but until you put out the fire, the smoke is there to stay.
Hateful speech is just the indicator of hateful thoughts. You can't deal with hateful thoughts by changing legislation. You deal with hateful thoughts by changing minds, and you can only do that by engaging people and talking to them.
The idea of censoring speech because it offends us, no matter how well intentioned, is wrong. It has no place in a free and just society. None whatsoever. Why? Well, for one, because, once upon a time, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" would have offended a fair number of people.
But guess what? A great man said it, and people listened, and now his part of the world is a different place.
Once upon a time, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" would have offended a lot more people than it does now. Guess what? Today, I can live openly, adopt children, serve in the military, and marry whoever I want.
The only solution to hateful speech that's ever worked is more speech. Don't change laws. Change minds. Censorship doesn't stop being wrong because I disagree with the person being censored. Tyranny doesn't stop being tyranny because the tyrant's a nice guy.
On the post: Maybe The Answer To The $200 Million Movie Question Is To Not Focus On $200 Million Movies?
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
True, but Pacific Rim still had a definite "Angels vs Evas" feel to it. Only with less teenage angst, and more slapping monsters in the face with boats.
On the post: Prime Minister David Cameron: Google, Bing and Yahoo! 'Enable' Child Porn
He's also asked "Which important piece of news has filtering been able to black out in recent years?" A question he apparently asked on Twitter, no less.
Is it just me, or is the Prime Minister of the UK taking a less sensible, less grounded in reality approach to the usefulness and practicality of filtering the internet than the future President of Iran?
When did that happen?
Next >>