Spain's Hologram Protest: Thousands Join Virtual March In Madrid 143
An anonymous reader writes Thousands of people marched past a parliament building in Madrid to protest a new law that they say endangers civil liberties. But none of them were actually there. From the article: "Late last year the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law, which will take effect on July 1, Spanish activists have staged the world's first ever virtual political demonstration. After months of massive flesh-and-blood protests against the so-called 'gag law', thousands of holograms last night marched in front of the Spanish parliament in Madrid."
UK solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).
Re:UK solution (Score:5, Funny)
Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).
If it passed a pub they'd have lost the other half too
Re: (Score:2)
From experience, that's usually what happens on the way back :)
Re: (Score:1)
Funnily, Oxford Street, despite being a mile long or more, only has one pub on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).
If people can be swayed by a sale tag, then I will gladly laugh in their damn face as to the "protest" being attempted.
I don't even know why they have to pass gag laws with the sheep being this easily distracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Few years ago, when teachers were protesting against low wages in UK, protest was routed through biggest commercial street in London (Oxford Street). Before it has reached the end, half of the people protesting was gone, shopping (they came from all over UK, so being able to visit all the shops, both discounts and posh ones was a real treat).
If people can be swayed by a sale tag, then I will gladly laugh in their damn face as to the "protest" being attempted.
I don't even know why they have to pass gag laws with the sheep being this easily distracted.
Fuck you. They all had to take a day's unpaid leave. If, having made their political point, they want to go shopping or get pissed, why the fuck shouldn't they in their own time?
Re: (Score:2)
How in the world did the parent to this post get modded "Score:5 Interesting"?
Re: (Score:1)
We are experiencing noticeable recovery. That said, I agree on your statement that "too many people can't afford the basic needs" because to me, any amount of people is too many people when it comes to that.
Nothing surpricing really. (Score:5, Insightful)
In too much of the world today other things than humans have more rights.
This ranges from corporations having many/most of the rights of humans in many countries, while at the same time only having to pay fines for crimes where humans would be put to jail. And ranging to things like the compensation values of different things you do when damaging humans compared to damaging property.
Re: Nothing surpricing really. (Score:5, Funny)
Surpricing: Unexpected news that affects a company's stock value.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers.
Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.
That wasn't the case with the Citizens United ruling. Nor was it the case with the earliest rulings on corporations, which protected them from violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the purpose of those "rights" is to shield the STOCKHOLDERS from legal responsibility.
If stockholders were held liable for decisions by management, your 401K/IRA/whatever would be pretty empty, since a fine paid by the corporation would then be passed along to the stockholders....
And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they m
Re: (Score:3)
No, the purpose of those "rights" is to shield the STOCKHOLDERS from legal responsibility.
If stockholders were held liable for decisions by management, your 401K/IRA/whatever would be pretty empty, since a fine paid by the corporation would then be passed along to the stockholders....
And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?
Why would stock holders be held to account and not the people who made the decisions to, or did commit the act of whatever crime? If that happens and a company goes bust and a stakeholder loses their investment then, that's how it works. Maybe companies would be less inclined to commit crimes and flout the law if it affected their ability to attract and keep investment in themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming no Limited Liability (you know,the thing that makes corporations corporations), it's pretty well established that the owner of a thing is responsible for the thing - if your dog gets loose and mauls a child, YOU are liable. If your car rolls down the hill into a crowd, you're the one in trouble, not the car...
Same with being a stockholder - YOU own it, YOU are liable f
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming no Limited Liability (you know,the thing that makes corporations corporations), it's pretty well established that the owner of a thing is responsible for the thing
Only within reasonable limits. If you give your car keys to someone and they proceed to run someone down, you will likely be held partially responsible. If you leave your keys in the car, and someone steals it and runs someone down, you may be held partially responsible. If someone hotwires your car and runs someone down with it, that's not your fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Stockholders MAKE decisions.
In a corporation, you the head honcho, the chief executive officer. He handles the day-to-day running of the company. He gets his marching orders from the Board of Directors who set the general direction of the company and what they'd like to see the company do. The Directors set the goals for the CEO, who then tries to execute them on the company.
The board of directors is held resp
Re: (Score:2)
Well, LONG before we traded stocks on the market so that speculators and people with no direct involvement the company could make money ... in the simpler case this was the owners of companies.
So four people could start a corporation, each with 25% ownership in the company, but their personal assets would be shielded from liability for company debts. The company could fail, but they wouldn't lose their shirts
Re: (Score:2)
I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers.
Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.
Corporations were created in order to limit their shareholders' liability to their initial investment, and thus encourage trade by removing the risk of a failed business banrupting you completely.
Re: (Score:2)
"corporations can't commit crimes"
Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale? How terribly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale?
It's not a defense, but an observation. Similarly, you can't point to a crime that the abstract entity, "the Mafia" commits, but which isn't actually committed by its constituent members.
Re: (Score:1)
Conspiracy stands out as number one. Yes, of course, each individual involved in the conspiracy is also guilty of conspiring to commit that crime, but the Mafia EXISTS to make those conspiracies possible.
Racketeering, unfair business practices, monopoly - all of these were created especially for businesses.
While half of America pretends that businesses have some "right to speech" with Citizen's United, it is impossible to pretend that corporations cannot be criminal. Some of them are criminal in their ver
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy stands out as number one.
My point exactly. One has to invent imaginary categories of crime in order to convict abstract social structures.
While half of America pretends that businesses have some "right to speech" with Citizen's United, it is impossible to pretend that corporations cannot be criminal. Some of them are criminal in their very nature.
Not at all. We can simply observe that corporations can't commit actual crimes.
How many banks were discovered to be laundering money, after the Wall Street meltdown? Criminals, every one of them. Criminal enterprises can't be held exempt from the law, just because they were incorporated somewhere.
Banks don't launder money. Bankers launder money.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. When crimes are committed routinely, in the course of business, then that business may be judged as a criminal enterprise. Assets may be seized, and the individuals prosecuted, individually and collectively. Incorporation offers a lot of protection, but incorporation should offer no protections for criminal acts. None.
Re: (Score:2)
When crimes are committed routinely, in the course of business, then that business may be judged as a criminal enterprise.
So what? You can make anything real or imagined a crime. But it remains that the people behind the business are carrying out the criminal acts, including that of a "criminal enterprise".
Assets may be seized, and the individuals prosecuted, individually and collectively.
They could anyway, unless, of course, no one actually committed a crime.
Incorporation offers a lot of protection, but incorporation should offer no protections for criminal acts.
It doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
But, you are implying that the corporation can't commit a crime. Then, you insist that this make-believe entity, the corporation, is exempt from prosecution.
I insist that each individual may be judged, AND that the collective entity, the corporation itself, may also be judged. We see this happen when judges impose fines on corporations - no individual within the corporation pays the fine, but the corporation does.
If the corporation can be fined, then by extension, it can be found guilty of criminal acts,
Re: (Score:2)
But, you are implying that the corporation can't commit a crime. Then, you insist that this make-believe entity, the corporation, is exempt from prosecution.
No, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to prosecute a non-sentient thing for a crime that it can't commit. Fantasy crime is just the tip of the iceberg with the problems this approach brings. For example, the idea that property can commit crimes is the basis of the reprehensible civil asset seizure laws that the US has.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale?
It's not a defense, but an observation. Similarly, you can't point to a crime that the abstract entity, "the Mafia" commits, but which isn't actually committed by its constituent members.
But a member of the Mafia (or a company director) isn't just acting on their own behalf. Just because there is no physical person called Mr Mafia or Mr Corporation doesn't mean that the organisation doesn't exist.
Institutions like the Army or Catholic Church most certainly have an existence beyond their constituent human members.
Re: (Score:2)
But a member of the Mafia (or a company director) isn't just acting on their own behalf. Just because there is no physical person called Mr Mafia or Mr Corporation doesn't mean that the organisation doesn't exist.
The point here is that the member of the Mafia is acting not the Mafia.
Institutions like the Army or Catholic Church most certainly have an existence beyond their constituent human members.
Sure, in that there's knowledge/tradition peculiar to the institution, property owned by the institution, recognition of the institution by outsiders, etc. None of this allows the institutions to act independently of their members and commit crimes independent of their members.
Re: (Score:1)
Astounding this is modded troll, but the GP is modded insightful, when the exact opposite is the case. People commit crimes, not corporations. Throw people in jail. And dragging corporations into a discussion of basic civil rigts shows trollish (and boorish) behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, I don't care that people are upset about corporate personhood- though if they want to be upset, they can find a far better quality of problem to be upset abo
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of you responding to my post with this when my post had nothing to do with your argument or the complaint?
Uh, you do realize you replied to the "complaint" with why you modded me? That makes your post having everything to do with them and a reason for me to reply.
Well, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the other poster who questioned why the OP got modded insightful while yours didn't.
If you didn't want people replying to your posts, then don't post on Slashdot. It's quite simple how it works.
I don't mind negative mods. I do mind being anonymously insulted by people who don't think. There were two very obvious problems just with the little bit you wrote. And this isn't the first time someone has posted to me in the third person a
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
No holograms showed up. This is a pepper's ghost illusion apparently performed with a projector and semitransparent material.
But I guess "hologram" nets more clicks.
Re: (Score:1)
Drat, their dastardly scheme was foiled (Score:2, Funny)
And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Headline is false (Score:2)
No holograms showed up. This is a pepper's ghost illusion apparently performed with a projector and semitransparent material.
Exactly. This is fake news. Holograms that can can be projected into and move through empty air do not exist except in science fiction. This "march" did not happen.
I read a lot of science fiction, but I do like to actually distinguish what is real and what is Star Trek.
How did this show up on slashdot, a site for self-proclaimed nerds, which is to say, people who actually care about real technology?
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Informative)
First, projection onto a semitransparent material is not a pepper's ghost illusion. Pepper's ghost is a reflection onto a 45-degree transparent screen.
Second, you are confusing implimentation with representation.
Full coulour video holograms are science fiction. The technology to create them doesn't exist and probably won't within our lifetime. But many representations of hologram individuals are commonly referred to as holograms, and nobody questions or challenges this.
For example, Arnold Rimmer on Red Dwarf and the EMH Doctor on Star Trek Voyageur are universally accepted as holograms, as is the projection of Princess Leia in Star Wars that was produced by R2-D2. I've never heard any nerd or pedant challenge this. But none of these holograms were made using holography. Rimmer and the EMH were just actors standing on set. Very occasionally they would use visual affects to indicate their hologram-ness. The projection of Princess Leia was also a visual effect. They weren't created using holograms. They represented holograms.
Likewise, this protest involved representations of holograms, created using non-holographic means (because there is no other way to do it). They are as much holograms as any character that is universally referred to as a hologram.
If this was a protest involving people waving toy lightsabers around, I don't think many pedants would complain if the media called it a lightsaber protest. You'd sound kind of stupid complaining that they weren't using "real lightsabers". So I don't know why people get so irrationally bent out of shape over representations of holograms.
Re: (Score:2)
I get your point, but I think a representation of a hologram is a representation of a hologram, regardless of whether or not the subject is a fictional character.
Plus, I can't think of many good alternatives to calling representations of holograms anything but "holograms".
You could call it a "virtual protest", but "virtual" is a weak and vague term. It's really more suggestive of VR or AR technology.
"virtual projection" is better than "virtual" on its own, and would work in this case. But it doesn't work fo
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe they are actually flat. The Spanish get more exercise than we do.
May as well be honest (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:May as well be honest (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> The Spanish government may as well be honest about the purpose of this law [...]
That'd be nice. And plenty other laws too, please. And not only in Spain. Now that'd be some real, significant change.
Re:May as well be honest (Score:4, Insightful)
It is once the law enforcement agents start battering people with night sticks.
Surprising news from Spain (Score:1)
From the article: "Late last year the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law, which will take effect on July 1
I thought the Generalissimo was dead? Or are we back to him "valiently holding on in his fight to remain dead"?
The truth is, as always, more complicated... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason there are more demonstrations with right wing governments in power anywhere is that the sort of hard left types who demonstrate are usually young , angry and naive. Right wing voters are usually more mature and protest in other ways when a left wing government is in power.
Re:The truth is, as always, more complicated... (Score:5, Insightful)
It may also have something to do with the attempts by the conservative government to remove peoples rights (said law is a good example), including abortion rights. And their economic policy is a mix of insane boondoggles (transporting water from one part of the country to another) and attacks on trade unions.
That doesn't mean the economy shouldn't reform, but the current proposals are, IMO, pretty one-sided.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's interesting, since there's an entire new breed of college and university kids that are left-authoritarians and believe that your rights should be restricted in order to protect their feelings from being hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that. Wish I had mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that who it was that pushed through the anti-privacy laws, including being able to access our browsing habits from the ISPs with no oversight, to stop bullying?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in most countries it is the oposite around. So I really doubt it is the case in Spain.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason there are more demonstrations with right wing governments in power anywhere is that the sort of hard left types who demonstrate are usually young , angry and naive. Right wing voters are usually more mature and protest in other ways when a left wing government is in power.
And for proof of this, all you have to do is look at General Franco's regime, where the mature-but- fun-loving right wingers certainly never demonstrated or used violence in any way. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
You are very wrong, at least in Spain, there are ALWAYS more protests against left governs than against the right wing governs for simple reason, right wings are extremists and they don't care about people so they don't simply give a f*ck about persons and their rights ... spanish right wing protest in masses against women rights to abort and they kill people ... so please, get your facts straight first.
On slashdot, right wing is good and left wing is bad. If a right wing person murders someone, then they're no true right winger. Oh, and Nazi stands for National Socialist so all left wingers are fascists.
Re: (Score:1)
This view is heavily biased to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
this poster above must be the equivalent of a teabagger. just to put his bullshit in context.
the spanish "left" has been a minority since franco. there is no real viable "left" alternative as much as there isn't any in the us, where calling democrats "left" would be a big stretch (that would be in spain the official workers party, for which "socialism" is just a funny part of the name, and just equally corrupt as the right.)
the part about protests is just outright lie. while there's little positive to say a
Re: (Score:2)
to add to this, there is a brand new political force in spain ("podemos", literally "we can") that is expected to overturn both traditional (right/lefty right bipartisanship) pro-stablishment parties. this is an absolute novelty. this new political party does have some "left" ideology although it declares itself neutral (go figure). it's supposedly a grassroots party made up of simple citizen, and there is a very real chance they get to power. main program points are emergency mitigation of social impact of
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Posting anon to be able to mod up against the jerk that modded this down. Pity I cannot comment too without undoing mod points. Spain is also ass-kissing the church, has still a feudalist mentality, and as long they do not kick out the king and the church, they are a fucked up country corrupt to the core and obeying to 3 masters (politicos, priests and king).
What does the king has to do with any of this?
Re: (Score:1)
Bingo.
Any police killed in the crossfire? (Score:1)
Were any riot police killed by their own crossfire as they attempted to execute the protesters?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're completely missing the joke. You can't shoot holograms.
Re: (Score:1)
Anon, because I forgot my PW: I like to add this little gallery of pictures: Spain, Barcelona 3/5/2012 [elpais.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know those are cops in those images? Yellow armbands? Hell, I can have those made up by the thousands. I can just as easily conclude that those yellow arm bands were passed out by the agitators, for the purpose of making the cops look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
because they are in every big protest, and have been identified many times. because you can spot them wearing headphones and talking to center command. because they have been captured on video throwing stones and inciting riots. because they are routinely identified and exposed by the crowd, and told to get the fuck out of the demonstration, which they promptly do, although not a single one of them has been harmed up to this date in these situations (on one instance however they got scared and had to be res
Re: (Score:2)
Posting again as anon. I meant to write that they are not planted policeman like people think but extreme leftists mixed with radical muslims.
is that the reason why they are wearing "police" armbands in the picture? idiot.
Protecting the Mob (Score:5, Insightful)
I look outside my manse window and see the hooligans shouting and pumping their fists into the air, and wonder, what is the benefit of it all? We've already bought the media, we control the message, so what do they think they're going to incite? The age of protest is dead, the age of tribute is begun. The ones who have the gold make the rules, as the richest voices get to shout loudest; of course, we make sure we're on the right side. And if we get to profit a bit from the arrangement, so what?
The Citizen Safety Law, contrary to its detractors, IS accurately named. The only thing protest is good for nowadays is trashing, looting, and injuries whenever it gets out of hand. Now bereft of purpose, the mob is only able to produce negative effects; this law simply dissipates the chaos before it can cause any harm.
slacktivism 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians respond to anything that seems harder. Why they don't respond to emails so much as letters. You mailed a letter... it is harder then popping off an email.
So a virtual protester doesn't mean much. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the point.
Showing up in person to protest at a government building without explicit permission from the government has been made illegal. Projecting images of protesters is a means of highlighting the fact that those protesters are no longer allowed to be there in person.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you're not allowed to protest? Well, that's never happened before... and certainly protestors always follow the letter of the law when they're forbidden to protest.
Seriously... In California we have people show up to protests with handcuffs and gas masks. They put the gasmask on and then handcuff themselves to something.
It has become so common that police and construction workers make sure to keep a pair of bolt cutters on hand so they can cut the handcuffs off.
And the really serious protesters sometimes
Re: (Score:2)
If it's so ignorable, why is it getting international news coverage now? The law was passed last year, after all. The goal was to draw public attention to an unfair law and they're accomplishing exactly what they set out to do.
This has nothing to do with slacktivism. It's a well thought out way of highlighting what's being done to the people's rights in Spain.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because we hear about it doesn't mean anyone else gives a shit about.
And more to the point, just because someone sees your crap doesn't mean it will have any effect.
This is something you learn in advertising as well as politics. Just getting a lot of attention is often COMPLETELY worthless. What you want is your objective to happen.
What is that? if you are an activist for something then you want something to happen. If that thing happens because these guys are doing this... then you got me, I was wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't go that far... I'm sure there are some protesters in other parts of the world that aren't complete jokes... including people in Spain. Just THOSE people with their projector are pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, if it were up to me, I'd just leave them right where they put themselves. They're all trust fund retards so they could pay someone to get them out. But that would mean their daddies would get upset.
if they just literally died there then I'd let them just decompose on the spot. Nothing would serve as a better example of the price of idiocy.
But my larger point was that this projecting crap on a wall is not impressing anyone. In china they have dudes that light themselves on fire... and die. In Australia a
Re: (Score:2)
oh, if it were up to me, I'd just leave them right where they put themselves.
More often then not, its right in the middle of someone's commute. By making themselves a PITA for everyone, the protesters get attention (often not the right kind).
The hologram is an interesting way of making a point about the 'no public assembly' law. But since it doesn't slow people down on their way to do business in the government facilities, it won't have much impact in future uses. Besides, it appears to only work at night, when not many people are coming and going.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh but I'm immune to that sort of protesting.
I respond to logic, sound arguments, and evidence. Throwing paint all over the place is infantile. Tying yourself to stuff is infantile. Saying if you won't do what I want I will hurt myself is infantile. Etc.
Projecting crap on a wall if I don't do what you want is both infantile and very easily ignorable.
Does this mean that most of the protests that people feel were famous and important mean nothing to me? Yep. Because what mattered was not that you got a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, my AC shadow found me in another topic where he wants to whine about getting serial raped in topic after topic.
*steeples hands*... Tell me you have something useful to add to the discussion besides reminding me that you're still bitter about losing over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
So, to answer my question... No... you don't have anything to offer besides reminding me how bitter you remain about getting stomped every time I lay eyes on you.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep checking in case you decide to actually be worth something. :)
Who knows... one day you might not be a douchebag.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the bit where I showed you that Issac Newton was a dick to people on a fairly regular basis... and he was one of the greatest minds in human history.
This was already explained to you. And yet you're using the same argument again despite the fact that you have been given evidence that one can be quite intelligent and educated and sophisticated... and yet utterly contemptuous of morons.
*bounces a frozen pea off the AC thick shiny skull*
You're a moron and you are right that I don't respect you... mo
Re: (Score:2)
if I've confused you with another AC, can you blame me?... price of hiding even your fake name, bro.
Log the fuck in and maybe I'd keep you fucks straight.
Re: (Score:2)
whatever, dude... I've been getting trolled by the same AC for about two or three weeks. The guy literally follows me around to trash talk. And I see your post, you're an AC, and I see the same bullshit coming out of you... and I assume you're the same douchebag.
Don't log in as AC if you don't want to be confused with other douchebag ACs.
End of discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... do you want to read literally 200 posts from the same AC that sounded almost exactly like you just did there?
Because that is the shit I have been subjected to lately.
If you don't like being confused with other shithead ACs, then log the fuck in.
No apologies. No remorse.
Login or accept that this will happen to you on occasion. This is YOUR problem. I am dealing with idiots that respond to me as best as anyone could possibly do so. You have anonymized yourself to such an extent that you are indistingu
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how the site works? You're the one complaining, shit for brains. Not me.
Maybe YOU don't understand how it works.
I'm not the one with a problem. YOU are. And as you can see, I don't care.
Suck it up or keep whining. Either way... I don't care.
The revolution... (Score:2)
I'm sure this will virtually scare the government. (Score:3)
EOM.
Meanwhile... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.”
- 1984
We've lost. (Score:2)
The 20th century has been repealed. It's over. Back to kings, merchant princes, and ghostly immortal power structures.
Kind of glad I'll be dead soon.
Holograms protesting (Score:2)
Holograms? (Score:1)
I'm surprised the equipment is not removed by the authorities. They won't let you assemble in person, but, they will let someone setup and run equipment for projecting 'holograms' on the premises? I'm surprised!
In my opinion, this looks like a great novel approach to giving people a way of making themselves 'heard' if you will without all of the problems usually associated with a large gathering of indignant/angry people.
It will be interesting to see if this becomes more widespread
Kudos to the "Holograms fo
But...but...! (Score:1)
If anyone wonders why the Founding Fathers wrote in absolutist terms in the First Amendment, this is why.
They knew charismatic demagoguery and outright sophistry were easy tools to use to override rights.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of gr
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Well it's not difficult for a government to turn a peaceful demonstration into a violent one, all you need to do is get the police to attack with batons and break a few limbs and you'll generally get a response. And you can then declare a riot and martial law.
I do sometimes wonder at the naivety of Americans who think that the Constitution in itself can prevent fascism.
Gov't response: (Score:1)
"Due to your antics, you will all be fired and replaced with a hologram."
holograms? (Score:2)
Re:Fuck you, clickbaiter (Score:4, Insightful)
I really hate summaries that conspicuously omit the only thing that's really important in the whole article.
I hate comments that say that something is "really important" but don't explain what it is.
So, which "really important" thing in the article is missing from the summary?
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate summaries that conspicuously omit the only thing that's really important in the whole article.
I hate comments that say that something is "really important" but don't explain what it is.
So, which "really important" thing in the article is missing from the summary?
The technology behind this hologram.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)