• Moose


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last Visited

1 Follower

About LexusInfernus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

939 Profile Views
  1. Yes, but sometimes there are good reasons to suppress someones right to self determination. Like with drugs, the problem is that drug abuse increases crime. From robberies by junks who need cash to pay for their next fix, to things like manslaughter because someone who is under the influence drives his car into another car or enters a psychotic rage and kills someone. Those crimes are much more severe breaches into the self determination of the victims of such crimes. Hence governments regulate these types of things. Also, having an opinion is never a detriment to someones ability to self determine. Separation of power is for the government, not social movements. And why can't a social movement have an academic base as well? If you want to change the world for the better, you need to determine what exactly 'for the better' means. For that you need to do observations and analysis. That way one can determine what goes wrong where and what could possibly help with fixing it. Just yelling you want change and rely on your gut feeling and political instinct on what would be good change is stupid and usually results in the idiocy of populism. Also no, if you try to change what you observe, why would it lead to a self fulfilling circle? If the changes you make don't work, your observations should show that it doesn't work. Not a single advanced country on the planet makes it difficult for academics or journalists to enter into politics if they so desire. And why should they? Being a scientist is a career and you are free to switch careers when you want in a free country.
  2. Well there is the problem. People who simply use feminism. The politicians that ban burkini's or headscarfs, supposedly to liberate the women beneath them. All the while failing to realize they are white guys with the power of the state telling women how they should dress. These people use feminist arguments but they are the exact opposite of feminists. This is the patriarchy co-opting feminist arguments to protect itself and its interests. Therefor, the problem isn't that feminists and feminism present their ideas or goals in the wrong way because these aren't feminists or feminist ideas or goals. The problem is and remains the patriarchy.
  3. Now Trump tweets that Transgenders can't serve in the military anymore after having talked it through with a bunch of generals, citing 'costs'. Well, can you be more of an asshole then by effectively firing thousands of people serving in your army and helping the country remain safe, than by doing it through a tweet? And for such a lame excuse? What costs? Transgender soldiers are hardly more expensive and if you can justify spending over a billion dollars on a shitty airplane, cost is no longer an excuse. Although of course, to that waste of human flesh that somehow became Commander in Chief, shiny expensive toys are probably more important than the people he is responsible for. Also, apparently the Pentagon wasn't aware that this policy shift was coming up, so that bit where Trump talked about it with his generals was probably a lie.
  4. I played it a bit and I think its a meh game. Mostly the way they try to balance stuff just flies in the face with the narrative the game is trying to set up. Yes, I understand that from a gameplay perspective its unbalanced if the player can recruit countless big scientists or generals or politicians. But at the same time, I'm playing as a species that has mastered its homeworld and is in the process of setting up an interstellar empire. Are you really telling me that a homeworld that has a few billion inhabitants only produces 10 people smart enough to be a scientist/general/politician? That kind of limited access to 'hero' characters makes sense in a game set in a pre industrial setting focusing on nations instead of interstellar empires. And honestly, games like Endless Space also give you limited access to hero characters, but at leas there its not absolutely necessary to have one on your scouting units or researching new tech. In a game like Endless Space it also makes heros actually special because your entire empire isn't depended on them to run the show. But really, this problem, as well as all the other artificial barriers that Stellaris keeps throwing at you. And while there is a way to push the barriers, the fact that they are so prominently there and are so completely out of touch with the narrative keeps me from remaining interested for more than an hour or two.
  5. Meh the Republicans first need to grow a spine before they will actually go with impeachment. Which I doubt will happen, given how its apparently mandatory for Republicans to have their spines surgically removed before they are allowed into politics. But honestly, why would this breach of ethics be the thing that kills the Trump presidency when all of the previous breaches resulted in nothing but mild indignation. I mean, the guy literally made two family members high ranking advisers of his administration, he still keeps tabs on how his businesses are doing and half of his ministers have 'conflict of interest' spelled on their foreheads. Did congress bat an eye? No, Republican politicians themselves are only interested in ethics when its something they can use against Democrats, just like they only gave a damn about the budget gap when its something they can use to block Democrat policies.
  6. I wholeheartedly agree with you there Well I doubt that they save a lot of money on production costs when it comes to the stuff they sell in Eastern Europe. Its all part of the EU anyways so it has to comply with the same food standards as in the rest of Europe. I think the main difference comes from how much effort they put in the finishing touches. How much stuff do they add to make their product look like it got some quality. And why not spend the effort on products for Eastern Europe? Are they not worth it? Or is it because companies think that they can get away with it because its Eastern Europe, they are used to dealing with inferior quality products? Both lines of reasoning come of as arrogant and stupid. As a side note, while I do not think that the actual quality of the food is affected, like I said all food as to comply with EU regulations, the way food looks most definitely has an effect on the way people experience consuming their food. Good looking food tastes better in our mind than bad looking food, even if its exactly the same. Its part of the reason why so much fruits and vegetables are thrown in the garbage, before they even had a chance to go to the supermarket, because its shaped 'odd' or just doesn't look as tasty. The quality is fine, but no one wants to buy a banana that doesn't have a curve or something like that.
  7. My Irish friends told me that the Guinness they export tastes worse than the Guinness they use for their own market. And frankly, the beer British buy is pretty watered down compared to what you buy in the rest of Europe. I think there is even less alcohol in it. But still, its pretty stupid that Eastern Europe gets all the crappier versions of simple supermarket products.
  8. Endless Legend is a far superior game so its not like you missed out
  9. Well if your job security is depended on you sucking up to your boss its not that odd to see them grovel at his feet. And more practically, sucking up to him means winning his favor and winning his favor means hes more likely to approve of things on their agenda. Or so they think. Normally this happens with every president, except that pretty much every president before this wasn't a petulant narcissist with the emotional maturity of a toddler, and didn't require constant sucking up to them to actually listen to their ministers.
  10. What do you mean, CNN 'extorts'? Everything has consequences as this little idiot just found out. Don't like it? Well you should have thought about it before you made that dumb little .gif.
  11. Well I gotta say I enjoyed it immensely to see Theresa May get absolutely punished for her arrogance and cowardice. Writing out an election just to see if you can demolish Labour even further just to lose your absolute majority in a system that highly favors two parties. Hilarious. And now she gotta negotiate Brexit with an unstable government and a bunch of ultra conservatives. I'm sure that will go splendidly. Lets see how long it takes before someone in her own party sticks her back full of knives.
  12. No they can't. It exists on private servers located on private property operated by private individuals. Unless you know exactly where each server is located and then go to physically shut off those servers, you can't hurt the dark web. And even if you were to try such a thing (which would have to happen on a global scale) you then also need to prevent people from purchasing private servers and hooking them up to the dark web again. But in order to prevent that, you'd need to implement draconian laws that would hurt legitimate internet users and businesses as well. You want to ban people and businesses from buying a simple and innocent piece of hardware because people might use it to hook it up to the dark web to store child porn?
  13. That example is actually pretty powerful proof for my argument, not yours. Lets break it down shall we? First of all, the police caught these guys. As the police does all the time. I regularly see news of police all over the world arresting a bunch of pedophiles after they cracked another pedophile ring. Often after serval police forces worked together. So why do we need more regulation when the police is already quite capable of arresting these people? If anything, the police could use more people to help them in these investigations because that is something they are consistently lacking in. They just don't have enough computer crimes experts that can help them in these types of investigations. What could also help is further formalizing and intensifying cross border police cooperation. Because we can see it works and produces results. And is the cross border aspect really such a problem? Well sure, a crime committed in another country is always more difficult to solve. But that is not internet specific. And how often do you hear of pedophiles hopping on a plane to Thailand or the Philippines to abuse some little kids there in person? Right, all the time. That involves the same cross border aspects as online abuse, except its much harder to solve because they don't operate in networks and catching one guy means you just caught one guy, instead of being able to identify and arrest the rest of the network. Second of all, the Dark Web and the reason why internet regulation is a stupid idea. The Dark Web isn't regulated by your ISP's, demanding of them that they know what users are up to when they use the Dark Web is asking them to turn lead into gold. The Dark Web is encrypted, no ISP or government can look into whats happening when people get on to it, unless they can look over the shoulder of someone when they log in. The Dark Web will exist as long as there are servers, internet connections and encryption and trying to get rid of it would literally require you to ban encryption and private servers. It also means that you can't regulate it because it exists in a place where the government can't get to it. That means that any and all internet regulation will affect the 'normal' internet exclusively. Meaning it only affects normal internet users like you and me. Aka the people that aren't committing crimes. So, when some politician says that we need to regulate the internet because otherwise pedophiles and terrorists will win, they are either lying through their teeth or just hopelessly ignorant of what the internet really is. They will just use the idea of pedophiles and terrorist scares to get people on board with government mandated search filters that will block anything they decide the people shouldn't see. So far, they have mostly gone after harmless porn. But first its porn, then its violent games. Then its blogs whose content is deemed to controversial. Then its anything big corporations don't want you to see. Then its Youtube and Netflix, Spotify and Tidal because they are completely destroying the old music and movie publisher industry. And then there is no internet left except adds and corporate and government approved websites. And those pedophiles and terrorists? Meh, they keep doing their thing on the dark web, and since those same politicians that gutted the internet also gutted the police and intelligence agencies budgets they don't have enough people to effectively investigate what happens on the Dark Web. Instead of 'regulating the internet' we should be investing in our police capacity to effectively investigate internet crime. They have already proven they can do it and they can be much better at it with more computer experts in their ranks. Thats how to solve internet crime.
  14. The internet does not 'enable massive amounts of crime'. Apart from internet specific crimes such as hacking or phishing, it doesn't enable much crime. At its worst it only makes certain crimes more visible. Pedophiles do not molest children because of the internet. Terrorists aren't terrorists because the internet. And states don't spread propaganda because of the internet. Its not actually any easier to commit these crimes, its only easier to spread videos and pictures of such crimes. And while that is a problem, regulating the internet is not actually helpful or effective, let alone a proportionate response to the problem. No one is sanctifying the platform. But it must be recognized that the internet became what it is exactly because in some ways its a free for all. There are few barriers to entry, few gatekeepers and that allows for easy access to a lot of different people. This unrestricted use has allowed for unparralled sharing of information across borders and creative expression. Just look at this site, it has members from all over the world, it has allowed for the creation of a modding community that has taken a decade old game and expanded its longevity to way beyond what anyone ever expected. This wouldn't be possible with an internet chopped up to pieces and controlled by governments and large corporations. 99% of those people use it with good intentions, 1% uses it for bad things. The proportionate response is NOT to create rules and regulations that will exclusively hinder the 99% and hardly bother the 1%. Outside the internet we use targeted and limited measures to identify and target people who have actually broken the law. We surveil mosques after there is evidence they are spreading radical terrorist propaganda and after a judge signed off on it. We don't spy on every place of worship in the country. We hunt for rapists AFTER they have committed a crime, we don't go after everyone who ever had a rape fantasy play out in their head. We go after criminals once there is actual evidence there has been a crime and the laws we use are designed to limit the powers that hunt for criminals and keep them from interfering in the lives of innocent citizens. Why should the internet be approached differently? But do so without dragging innocents into it. Yeah except the problem is not the law. We either don't to change the laws or we need to change them slightly so they can account for new technical realities. Either way, they are more than sufficient to punish criminals that use the internet. The real problem is enforcement. First, there are simply shortages of personal that can handle these types of crimes or that understand the extra dimension the internet can give to certain crimes. Law enforcement agencies simply haven't taken the internet serious enough yet, or because of budget cuts overseen by people like Therasa May, can't take on new personal to strengthen their position. Secondly there is simply the problem of multiple jurisdictions. Yes, if a criminal lives in a different country, its much more difficult to go after them. But thats the case with all international crime (which is hardly exclusive to the internet) and the solution there is simply more international cooperation between countries. Its in these situations that agencies like Interpol and Europol can and do make a real difference. Either way, regulating the internet on a national level, effectively introducing national borders into the internet would instantly ruin what makes the internet so great and effective. With borders, the internet might just as well not exist. All that without actually making anyone safer. It would just make problems less visible.
  15. The Chinese have, and they still suffer from domestic terror attacks. On top of that, if all the previous times where you were asked to give up a bit of freedom or privacy didn't help one bit, why would this time be different? So vote for May, who promised to stop sharing intelligence with other European nations regarding potential terrorists unless she gets her way in the Brexit negotiations. Anyways, the guy who attacked in Manchester was known by the police and intelligence agencies so my point still stands. If they really didn't know who these people were, then no, it wouldn't have helped. But neither would have regulating the internet. Face it, nothing can stop a reasonably smart, reasonably careful, highly motivated terrorist from grabbing a knife in the kitchen, get into his car and commit the type of attack as we saw in London. You don't need to know whats going in there if you already know who the potential suspects are and can use already existing laws and tools to monitor these individuals. It will pay far more dividend to invest in traditional policing then in demanding that people give up their privacy. On top of that, once you decrypt Whatsapp, who is to say the real bad guys won't just switch to a different form of encryption? Finally, it might be a lot more interesting to look at the root causes of radicalization. Britain should ask itself why so many of their Muslim men have gone to Syria to fight for ISIS. Once you understand that, its relatively easy to come up with ways to prevent further radicalization. If there aren't any terrorists, there is no need to spy on everyone, wouldn't you agree?