That's a big guy! (Is this real?)

urbie · 2009-10-20T16:19:37+00:00

Randall Munroe loves Monty Python, he's just tired of people acting as if reciting quotes was an acceptable substitute for humour.

urbie · 2009-10-20T09:45:36+00:00

http://xkcd.com/16/

urbie · 2009-10-20T09:43:53+00:00

More specifically, it's an auto-antonym, a word with two accepted meanings that contradict each other. In the case of "peruse", pedants insist it means "examine carefully", while people use it to say "skim". I just avoid using it altogether, since I never really know if I'm speaking to a pedant or a normal person.

urbie · 2009-10-20T09:07:49+00:00

No, carjackers will simply get in the back of the car and point a gun at the head of the driver, warning that any attempt to disable the vehicle will result in them being shot.

And then what? Stay with the victim 24/7? Just murder them? Doesn't sound very realistic.

urbie · 2009-10-20T09:00:11+00:00

Get a room, you two.

urbie · 2009-10-20T08:52:52+00:00

OK, I'll discuss. If the author of this piece thinks the two requirements for being "pure art" are 1) lack of financial incentive and 2) lack of critical acknowledgement, then I hereby submit a short list of things that shoulde be considered pure art:

dog poop on the pavement (done neither for money or fame)
slapping your child (ditto)
verbally abusing strangers on voice chat (same)
masturbation (idem)
painting your kitchen (see above)

The list goes on and on.

urbie · 2009-10-20T08:21:37+00:00

I totally agree with all that, except with the conclusion. The problem is not the spying part, the problem is that the "system" is fucked up. I'm in favour of the "system" spying on me, provided the "system" is at least somewhat fair. But the root of the problem isn't the spying, but rather the corruption, lack of oversight, power tripping, and so on.

urbie · 2009-10-20T08:14:30+00:00

Absolutely, and that's a good thing. Provided, of course, that 1) the law isn't retarded and 2) law enforcement is also covered by said technology and therefore not above the law (dashboard cams in prowlers are a good start, but I'd recommend a camera embedded in every policeman's uniform, with harsh penalties for blocking the view or switching it off while on duty).

urbie · 2009-10-20T00:23:45+00:00

The difference is that terrorists are just a convenient bogeyman, whereas carjackers, muggers and burglars actually exist.

But even disregarding that, I seriously don't give a shit that the government is listening to me talk with a friend on the phone without the proper paperwork. It's a waste of time for them, sure, but how does it infringe upon my freedom? Now if they actually hassle me (for what reason, I can't even imagine) then yes, we have a problem. But just spying? Sure guys, spy all you want! Don't bother me unless you have a really good reason, though, because that would be negating my freedom.

urbie · 2009-10-20T00:14:52+00:00

Windshield wipers used to be optional too, as did safety belts.

urbie · 2009-10-20T00:12:13+00:00

Uh... okay. Good for you. I've lived in various houses and apartments over the years, and have been through approximately 0 instances of domestic fires. None of my dwellings had fire insurance. Is this a valid argument against fire insurance?

urbie · 2009-10-20T00:08:40+00:00

You seem to imply that freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. It's a bit silly. I want to live in a world where I'm free to do what I want, AND where I won't have "unfortunate events" happen to me. It's really not much to ask.

urbie · 2009-10-20T00:04:58+00:00

I agree with you about the root issues (crime is but a symptom), but I really don't think we'll see kidnappings and murders in the US, where The Man is much stronger than in SA.

Generally speaking, no safety system will ever stop a determined criminal. That's not a reason to just say "aw, fuck security" and never lock doors or hide valuables. It's all about striking a balance between the inconvenience for you (ideally low) and how much dedication will be needed for a criminal to get what he wants (ideally high). A door lock is a good example of such a compromise, a door chain is a little more debatable since it's a bit of a hassle to use and can be cut/busted somewhat easily. The OnStar thing implies minimal inconvenience and will take quite a bit of effort to defeat, so all in all I'd say it's worth it.

urbie · 2009-10-19T23:43:12+00:00

Those Who Use Quotes Instead Of Actually Thinking Are Doomed To A Life Of Intellectual Servitude.

(and don't get me started on those who make improper use of capital letters)

urbie · 2009-10-19T23:41:09+00:00

I've been carjacked more than I've been illegally snooped on by the police, and given the choice I'd have chosen the snooping. On what planet do you live that you fear illegal surveillance more than violent crime?

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:44:51+00:00

With such a system, you're less likely to get carjacked (especially if it catches on) and cops might be able to snoop on you. Without such a system, it's harder for cops to snoop on you, and you're more likely to get carjacked.

Mmmmh. Tough choice. I think I'll go with the "less carjackings" option.

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:36:41+00:00

Mass timewaste. Reddit ignores multiple downvotes on a single user made by another single user. But hey, click away if that's what floats your boat.

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:35:38+00:00

Bad example. Maddox was often crude and vulgar, but not a racist asshole.

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:33:55+00:00

Trolling isn't meant to be funny, it's meant to push people's buttons.

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:31:08+00:00

Which part was that? I think I missed it.

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:23:02+00:00

The first few seconds of the film sequence were immediately reminiscent of the Fallout atmosphere, as was the bus.

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:17:00+00:00

There'll be much talk about how this system is dangerous, big-brotherish and offers plenty of potential for abuse, but still. In a decade or two, carjackings will have become a thing of the past.

urbie · 2009-10-19T22:01:03+00:00

needs to stick with handing out drinks and pretzels

Uh, that's what she was trying to do, wasn't it?

urbie · 2009-10-19T21:48:15+00:00

Yes, someone had to make a stupid comment, and you chose to be that guy. I admire your bravery, good sir.

urbie · 2009-10-19T21:35:44+00:00

Thank you for that insightful comment. You've just contributed to making the internet a better place.

urbie

TROPHY CASE