Sen. Feinstein Says Anarchist Cookbook Should Be "Removed From the Internet" 538
schwit1 writes with this snippet from Ars Technica: In the wake of the Thursday arrest of two women accused of attempting to build a bomb, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote on her website that the 1971 book on bomb making, which may have aided the terror suspects in some small way, should be "banned from the Internet."
The senator seems to fail to realize that not only has The Anarchist Cookbook been in print for decades (it's sold on Amazon!), but also has openly circulated online for nearly the same period of time. In short, removing it from the Internet would be impossible.
The senator seems to fail to realize that not only has The Anarchist Cookbook been in print for decades (it's sold on Amazon!), but also has openly circulated online for nearly the same period of time. In short, removing it from the Internet would be impossible.
Sen. Feinstein (Score:5, Insightful)
Should be removed from congress.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Sen. Feinstein (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell the people who lead the California Republican Party to pick candidates who are closer to the center.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't win with 30% of the registered voters, not even if they dug up Ronald Reagan.
Wouldn't help (Score:3)
She's an incumbent, which gives her a big advantage. Add to that the number of rabid "I'll never vote republican EVAR" folks in California, she's got enough that she'll never get voted out.
Only bright spot is she's currently the oldest serving senator. At some point probably reasonably soon, she'll have to leave because of age.
Re: (Score:3)
What problem? Democracy?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or you know, the Democrats could nominate somebody competent for a change.
Re: Sen. Feinstein (Score:5, Informative)
CA government has gone broke twice in recent memory,
Actually, it hasn't. They claimed they ran out of money to run the parks and such, but it was revealed they'd been hiding that money from the public and there was plenty of funding sitting around in cash form all along.
You think they're inept, but they're actually immoral
Re: (Score:3)
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. For California to choose someone over Feinstein, that person has to be close enough to center to attract some of the left-wing vote. Otherwise, if both candidates are equally unacceptable, albeit in different ways, the left-wing voters are going to naturally
Re: (Score:3)
The last Senate election, the Republicans ran Carly Fiorina against Boxer. Their candidate was best known for being the person who single-handedly nearly bankrupted one of the largest high-tech companies in the world. As a result, a bunch of current and former HP employees had a website with her name that basically talked about what a disaster her leadership at HP had been. She was pretty much guaranteed to lose almost the entire Silicon Valley vote, and probably didn't do well here even among Republican
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck-tard here. In the last election it was Feinstein vs. Fiorina. I voted for Feinstein.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Elizabeth Emken was Feinstein's opponent last time.
Fiorina ran against (and was defeated soundly by) Barbara Boxer, California's other senator, in 2010.
Re:Sen. Feinstein (Score:5, Informative)
Should be removed from congress.
She was reelected in 2012 with 62% of the vote. The only way she can lose is if the California Republican Party nominates someone sensible, and the chance of that is remote. The California Republican Party self destructed back in 1994, when they adopted a virulently anti-immigrant platform in a state that is 40% Hispanic and 13% Asian That have been mostly irrelevant ever since, and California is now a one party state.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't matter if the Republican party nominated a Hispanic Lesbian to run against her. Feinstein is part of the machine and will return again and again.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 truth.
Re:Sen. Feinstein (Score:5, Insightful)
You are mistaken. It would make a difference. It would show a change of attitude.
The problem isn't that Republican party is dominated crotchety white guys (and i say that as a rotchety white guy myself). The problem is too many of those Republican crotchety white guys are racist, violent extreme nationalists, religious fundamentalists. torturer lovers, and/or have turned into Randroids.
Not all Republicans are bad people nor are all actions of Democrats good (see Al Franken that along with Obama support mass surveillance). However a fair chunk of Republicans have gone off the deep end. They've let America's influence get to their head. The earth isn't 6000 yaars old. It's ok to be non-white American or gay. Its ok not to be religious. People in other countries create things too. Military should only be used if rare situation where there is no other choice for self-defense... not as an excuse to bully other nations.
Lincoln was a Republican for goodness sake. Eisenhower too. Post Reagan though (who was a pretty decent President) being Republicans has turned into a horror show. Its become a synonym for who can act like a bigger asshole to the "inferiors" in the rest of the world. What's really scary though.. a fair chunk of Americans have been buying into their mystic we are Gods chosen people and the ubermensh gibberish these last few years. I shudder to think the hell on earth that will break out if the racist mystic war monger faction of the Republican party manages to win the republican ticket and go on to become President. ISIS are unquestionably fanatics but there currently is judeo-christian counterpart to found among some in America. Dangerous organizations like Heritage Foundation , war mongering neo-cons, and crazies like Coulter have nothing to do with freedom or rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, we had two terms from a republican governor / governator, but he's a RINO. Also the rebuts have maintained a large enough minority to torpedo any funding legislation since any tax changes require 67% supermaj. Also they have not hesitated to legislate at the ballot box, c.f. Prop 8.
Re: (Score:2)
8.6% registered Republicans in her district, city of San Fran. Dems could run a Dead Yellow Dog and it would still win.
Republicans could run anyone you care to name and lose.
Re:Sen. Feinstein (Score:4, Interesting)
From over here in Europe, the whole of the US looks like a one party state with the party having two artificial flavours.
Re: (Score:2)
To my limited knowledge of the American politics, _any_ citizen of the United States of America who are not charged with crime can run for political office
Actually, to run for president it's not enough just to be a citizen, you have to be born in the US. Sorry Ahnold, no naturalized citizens in the White House!
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. You have to be a "natural-born citizen", but no-one really knows what that means. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and there hasn't been much questioning of his status as a natural-born citizen. McCain was born in (or near) the Panama Canal Zone and the Senate agreed that he was eligible to be President.
You got that part right.
"natural-born citizen" is well understood ... (Score:5, Informative)
You have to be a "natural-born citizen", but no-one really knows what that means.
Not true, "natural-born citizen" is well understood. It means that you were a citizen of the United States of America at the time of your birth. There are various ways of being so born. Being born in the US is one. Being born to a US parent is another. So whether you are born in Canada, Mexico, Panama or Kenya does not matter so long as you have one or more US parents. Its really not that complicated at all.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's that clear cut, why all the uproar about Obama's birth certificate?
Politics. The same reason there is confusion over the 2nd amendment and various other parts of the constitution. Some politicians actively engage in deceit and manipulation. Things are clear when you do your own research rather than take some politicians word on things. Look at Harry Reid's admitted lies about Romney. Its just FUD. They all do it. Every minute a candidate has to spend correcting some batshit crazy thing the media clings to is a win for the opponent. And the media clings to this batshit craz
Re: (Score:3)
Another example was Eugene V. Debs, who ran for president from jail. He was convicted of encouraging people not to join the military in WWII.
We don't really have freedom of speech in the U.S. It comes and it goes.
Re:Sen. Feinstein (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what she says or does she'll continue to get elected. Just like Nancy Pelosi who despite the fact she says and does things that make her supporters cringe will continue to return to congress. Think about it, "we've got to pass it to find out what's in it." She can utter the most moronic statements and do the most stupid things and it doesn't hurt her polling numbers at all. In US politics it's all about the bacon. If you can bring home that slab of Pork they'll send you back again and again which is why it's virtually impossible to get rid of these people. They take our money then bribe us with it to get themselves returned to office again and again and again. Although these two outstanding examples are Democrats there are plenty of Republicans in the same category.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what she says or does she'll continue to get elected.
it's called "professional politicians" and happens all over the world (where there's some sort of elections, that is)
Re:I do not understand (Score:5, Insightful)
"Are the USian voters so damn stupid?"
Yes, they are, almost all of them, no matter who they vote for.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, if you have a population of 300 million people that was formed from the most geographically diverse mixture of immigrants of any nation on the planet, statistical probability dictates that they probably suffer from a mass intellectual deficiency and are all more stupid than any other population sample. What they need is you to be their president and fix everything.
Or, maybe democracies everywhere suffer from the same systemic defects that result in fallible humans holding elected office.
Nah, you'
Re: (Score:3)
The people in these assclown's districts are, for the most part, as ignorant as the assclowns they keep electing.. All these elected idiots have to do is be seen getting bills passed to send pork to the home district and regular as clockwork, they get reelected. I live in Nevada and Harry Reid, the "poster-child" for Congressional idiocy is one of the Senators from this state. The last time he was up for re-election, there was quite a wave of voter fraud, a small amount I personally witnessed, as I was a Re
Re: (Score:3)
"The problem is we have a two party system, with two parties that are pretty much the same. We need a viable third, fourth, or even fifth party to shake things up a bit."
That is not the problem. The problem is that we become INVESTED in a given party and vote for the party over the person. That is more of an issue of polarization skewing people's votes than lack of a third or fourth party candidate. The moment we view "The Republicans" or "The Democrats" as "evil" is the moment we toss our ability to vot
Re: I do not understand (Score:2)
The accepted noun for a citizen of the United States is "American." It is used in sources ranging from Wikipedia to Websters to CIA's World Factbook.
The answer to your question is complicated and would require an explanation of the American electoral process that is likely to be lost on you. Suffice it to say, we're not the only democracy where idiots regularly win elections. It happens in all of them.
Re: (Score:3)
As with many words, it has more than one meaning, depending on the subject you're discussing. When you're talking about nationality -- which was clearly the case -- "Americans" means people who live in the United States. If you're talking about geography, it means people who live in either North or South America. Since there are far more topics of discussion that apply to everybody in the US than apply to everybody living on both continents (time zones, maybe? plate tectonics?), the former is used.
Not in American English, nor to most native speakers of British English. Only the areas which have a false cognate with a single-continent definition of North and South America have any confusion.
It's unambiguous. North America and South America are *never* called "America" in American English, and only incorrectly in British English. The correct term for the two referred to as one is "The Americas".
Re: I do not understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people think of their location in terms of political entities rather than geography.
there are examples of the opposite. people in canary islands, for example, refer to themselves as "canarios", not "spanish". that makes sense, however, because the term isn't inaccurate.
Point taken, but in that case, their term is more specific and helps distinguish them from a larger group -- the exact opposite of the way you want to use "Americans." And you'll note that they do not call themselves "Africans" despite their islands being geographically part of that continent.
That's not just an American thing.
can you remember any other instance where the name of a whole continent is appropriated by a single country as "nationality"? thought so.
The Republic of India, generally called "India" and whose citizens are generally called "Indians", despite sharing the subcontinent of India with Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Do you call the citizens of the Republic of India "RoIans"?
Besides which, the idea that it's an "appropriation" is silly. Next to no one uses it that way in everyday conversation or refers to themselves primarily that way, because it doesn't tell you anything useful about them. If I tell you someone is an American in the nationality sense, that lets you make some generalizations about them -- you know he probably speaks English, you know to a degree what kind of food he eats, what TV shows he watches, who the leader of his country is, etc. (Feel free to snark if you wish here). If I use it in the geographic sense, it tells me... what, exactly, besides the tautology that they live on either the North American or South American continent? That they set their clocks between UTC-3 and UTC-11? Heck, just telling me if a person lives north or south of the equator tells me more about where they live than saying that they live in the Americas.
In short, when a word has multiple meanings, people naturally gravitate towards the meaning that's most useful. Referring to someone as an American in the sense you want to use it is only slightly more useful than telling me they're a Terran.
you should be able to understand how nonsensical this looks from anywhere outside united states.
i know that this is customary in the states, but you guys should also note that this is the internets where you are being read.
It's used that way in plenty of other countries, including Canadians, who would have as much right to be annoyed by the supposed "appropriation" as anyone else. My impression is that they're proud of their demonym and have no great yearning to lump themselves in with a couple dozen other countries by calling themselves "Americans."
Furthermore, at a guess I'd expect that "American" in the nationality sense came into common man-on-the-street usage (as opposed to political tracts or whatnot) outside the US before it did so inside it, because for the first 75 years -- prior to the US Civil War -- most people here tended to designate themselves and others by their state rather than national identity. They didn't primarily think and speak of themselves as Americans but as Virginians, Vermonters, Ohioans, Kentuckians, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Most European languages???
I only speak four, and here are the words they use:
Spanish: americano
Italian: americano
French: américain
German: Amerikaner
I can go just about anywhere in the world and use one of these languages (or English). So, I'm gonna call B.S. on your statement.
In fact, I find that in Europe, Europeans are more likely than US citizens to use the "offensive" word, because we Americans know we have neighbors to the south and north who don't always like it.
Re: (Score:3)
"America" was the word for new world in its entirety, and as the first major nation formed there that came to dominate the linguistic usage of the term for citizenry was the United States of America, the term "American" came to be used for its citizens. That makes perfect sense following the normal structural patterns of English on the root word in the name of the country. This is only "offensive" to people living in countries outside the Americas who have a bone to pick with the USA and like to look for re
Re: (Score:3)
"That's just like your opinion, man." -T.D.
Language is full of 'stupid' things, and in each case, it is due to historical reasons of how the usage evolved. "America" was the new world in its entirety, and as the first major nation formed there that came to dominate the linguistic usage of the term for citizenry was the United States of America, the term "American" came to be used for its citizens. That makes perfect sense following the normal structural patterns of English on the root word in the name of th
Re:I do not understand (Score:4, Informative)
They don't have to be liars either, they can just be incredibly dumb and still get re-elected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
For democrats, it mainly comes down to the belief that their guy will give them free stuff (money for nothing, chicks for free.)
For republicans, it mainly comes down to "is he conservative enough" without any clear definition of what "conservative" actually is. The British equivalent (if you're from there) would be that they want to make sure he's a True Scottsman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For democrats, it mainly comes down to the belief that their guy will give them free stuff (money for nothing, chicks for free.)
No, for Democrats it comes down to hoping that they'll make the hard/unpopular choices of keeping the environment clean, protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children" and "or the terrorists win" crap, etc.. Unfortunately, they (like the Republicans) are typically more interested in getting corporate sponsorships to get re-elected, and will generally sell out everything they pretend to believe in to get it.
For republicans, it mainly comes down to "is he conservative enough" without any clear definition of what "conservative" actually is.
That sounds pretty accurate.
Re:I do not understand (Score:4, Insightful)
protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children"
Democrats are just as willing to use that canard, they just use it to support violation of different rights than Republicans do. For example, this [reason.com], or just as a general magic phrase to demand access to your wallet.
Re: (Score:3)
> No, for Democrats it comes down to hoping that they'll make the hard/unpopular choices of keeping the environment clean, protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children" and "or the terrorists win" crap, etc.. Unfortunately, they (like the Republicans) are typically more interested in getting corporate sponsorships to get re-elected, and will generally sell out everything they pretend to believe in to get it.
I defy you to offer any evidence to support that. Do you realize it was Nixon who
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How come proven liars such as Pelosi and Feinstein keep on getting re-elected despite all the goddamn things that they have done?
Because the alternatives presented by the other party are even worse, and due to the way the system was set up, both originally and by the changes made via the 17th amendment (which made senators elected, rather than appointed by the state legislatures), it's all but impossible for anyone not of the current major parties to get in (it's difficult enough for them to even get on the ballot).
Re: (Score:2)
Pelosi district is San Francisco. Registration is 8.6% Republican.
Democrats could run anyone and they will win. The Green candidate is a more viable candidate.
State is 30% Republican overall, so there is a slim-but-unlikely chance of getting a Statewide Republican candidate to win.
Re: I do not understand (Score:5, Interesting)
It works like this:
American politicians have worked for decades to decode the U.S. voter and their habits. They spend millions of dollars annually on "focus groups" and "mock votes" in order to successfully determine the most advantageous avenues to manipulate the electorate into supporting them in their efforts to remove rights from the electorate, disenfranchise the electorate, and more firmly establish the elected as a modern day aristocracy in spite of US law and constitutional impetus. Look up "wedge issue" to see how the party leadership will use specific issues to fracture a voting block and turn them against each other. Watch how each party incites their proscribed demographic to feel threatened by others. Note how politicians play at fighting the other party, but vote as a whole when presented with an opportunity to curtail, circumvent, or remove rights guaranteed to the people by the constitution and/or bill of rights. And pay special attention to the media mouthpieces when they call out their leaders on their faults. It provides a voice for people's recognition of total incongruity on the part of their leaders, but by voicing it the supporters' ire is assuaged and they go merrily and sheepishly back to fighting the opposition and completely forget to hold their leaders accountable.
In America there are two political parties. They are not liberal and conservative. They are not Republican and Democrat. They are simply the elected and the electorate. Anyone who forgets this or fails to see it, at any time, is a pawn, a sheep...and therefore untrustworthy, compromised. They are exactly equal to those religious people that atheists and sceptics so vociferously condemn. They have lost control of their intellect and sacrificed their freedom and judgement in pursuit of an empty purse. They cannot be trusted even with their own self interest, much less the advancement of society as a whole.
So, welcome to America, where Rome is burning and all anyone does is comment on how good it looks in HD. Stay away if you value your sanity, your freedom, and your connection to humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
I personally think that the vociferous attacks are counterproductive, but as an atheist, I totally understand the ire. Religion is behind a lot of law that is antagonistic to liberty and science and a source of incredible amounts of bigotry. Christians like to play the martyr, but they are a bullying majority with a really dirty history that has opposed and obstructed progress in the science, arts, and human condition for millennia.
So in answer to your question, think of it this way: most atheists aren't
Re: (Score:3)
Systems like this can't be changed from the inside. At best you can have a constitutional convention to fix these problems. At worst, you get civil war
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of Congress is made up of greedy idiots. This is as it should be as the US has a representational democracy. The politicians reflect the values of the voters. They take our tax money and use it to bribe us with pork projects so they can constantly return to office in election after election.
Done! (Score:2)
It has been removed from Dianne's Internet. Oh wait. She just logged into another machine. brb
Out of touch with the world she lives in (Score:5, Insightful)
yet holding a position of responsibility for it
so fucking stupid
Re:Out of touch with the world she lives in (Score:4, Interesting)
Recently Indian government tried to ban the documentary "India's daughter." The Indian home minister is a seventy plus Rajnath Singh. His first reaction is to "ban" the documentary. He knows "ban" worked in the nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of touch with the world she lives in
yet holding a position of responsibility for it
so fucking stupid
That's not "stupid," that's today's California.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of other states with representatives as bad or worse than Miss Feinstein. Although California also has Pelosi and she makes Senator Feinstein look like a genius.
Re: (Score:2)
ssh root@Internet
rm -f
And the rest of America (Score:4, Insightful)
Says that Sen. Feinstein should be removed from the senate.
Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
So what time is the book burning? I've got a whole library to go through. We'll have to hunt down that cloud so we can stab it with pitchforks, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Feinstein bears an uncanny resemblance to the hound.
Inspire (Score:4, Insightful)
She's also mentions Inspire Magazine.
Inspire used to be edited and mainly authored by Samir Khan Samir Khan was an American citizen, convicted of no crime; he was never even indicted. He was assassinated on orders of Barack Obama along with Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011.
So when these criminals like Feinstein talk about banning books, note they may also mean assassinating the authors.
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
Re: (Score:2)
You know he went to Yemin and created Inspire to actively recruit and train individuals in the US to build bombs in their mother's kitchens and teach them how to become suicide bombers. The entire thrust of his fucking rag was to justify mass murder against American citizens. Inspire's purpose was to inspire a jihad within the United States. This piece of shit turned traitor against not just his country but his own family. I've never really been a fan of President Obama but occasionally he does do good
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When American citizens leave the country and actively take part in what amounts to a war against their own country there is no requirement for a trial. If found in the company of enemy combatants they can be treated in the exact same manner as the enemy and treated as targets of opportunity. This has always been so. I agree that if he had returned we should have grabbed him and tried him for treason. He was, alas, in the company of Anwar al-Awlaki who was the actual target of the drone that killed Khan.
Re: (Score:3)
hostfile her (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use that book anyway, very bad advice (Score:2, Informative)
The Anarchists Cookbook is simply a very bad book. Not bad because of the motives of those reading (generally), but bad because much of the instructions given in there are bad, sometimes dangerously so...
Back when I was a kid, lets say "thinking" about playing around with this stuff, I quickly realized that things it were saying to do were really bad ideas. At the time I remember actually thinking it must have been put out by the CIA in an effort to thwart potential bombers, either by making devices that
Needs tag (Score:3)
"unclear on the concept!"
Re: (Score:3)
It is about banning ideas about rapid combustion. Current easiest method of self immolation, fuel air. Get large metal container and spark plug. Make hole in container filling cap for spark plug. Put some highly flammable fuel along with a bit of liquid detergent, screw on cap with spark plug fitted. Shake it on up, the more the merrier. Attach conductive wire to spark plug, stretch wire out and move out of range, and attach other end of wire to battery. Now that one is so old that I learned about it as a
Still sold in physical form. (Score:2)
I saw it on a shelf at "the anarchist bookstore" about 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
The local Tower Records had a copy on sale there too. Back when they were around, that is...
Another fossil that doesn't know... (Score:2)
... what the internet is in the first place. You can't stop ISIS from bragging about torturing people on the internet and this ignorant has been thinks she can ban a book from the internet?
Just speak when spoken to Feinstein.
Comments like hers are worse than that dumb comment about the internet being "tubes". That guy at least wasn't sitting there trying to hold a 21st century book burning.
You think we've come farther and every so often you're reminded that vast portions of society including many people sad
"Removed From The Internet" (Score:2)
it should have one of those warning lables (Score:2)
because you'll poke your eyes out with that shit. it's very dangerous
Streisand Effect! (Score:3)
I wonder how many copies of The Anarchist's Cookbook sold this week!
It is not hard to make dangerous things that go boom. Heck, some of the things that I blew up behind my garage when I was 13 would probably send me to Gitmo now. Believe it or not, that doesn't make me a terrorist.
Maybe it would be smarter to examine why people might want to make bombs and kill people, and work to make a world where people don't want to make bombs and kill people, even if the The Anarchist's Cookbook was on every coffee table in the world.
The War in Terror, just like the War on Drugs, will not be won simply by "just saying No". Until human motivations are examined, it will all be a horrendous waste of life, effort, and resources for no gain.
Re:Streisand Effect! (Score:5, Insightful)
Making things go boom isn't terrorism, but it's treated as such. Reading books about how things could be made to go boom isn't terrorism. Intent is behind terrorism more than any amount of relevant knowledge.
Every driver, however, has a terrorist tool at their hands. You can buy bottles of gas for a pittance. You can't stop the tools because the tools are so damn simple and cheap and basically include every compact source of energy we have and use (I'm waiting for the first electric battery / supercapacitor terrorist, but the energy density is probably still too low to do anything but blow your own head off).
Terrorism is designed to invite terror. To make you fear the people doing it.
By doing what we're doing as a planet now - making terror so terrifying and then beaming it into every home - we're basically playing right into their hands. One guy, with one simple device can make the news worldwide. Even if it's a complete botch (I'll say "shoe bomber", you tell me if you've heard of him, now tell me why you now have to take shoes off in airport security when you NEVER used to have to).
Want to defeat terrorism? Stop giving a shit about them.
The UK was dealing with terrorists willing to bomb cities and bring down planes since the 70's (and a lot further back than that because we were arseholes). We learned how to deal with them - ignore them. Don't stop catching them, but just make their efforts have so little impact that - in this case - they give up the terrorism and become politicians.
IRA bombings in the UK (and London especially) only invited comments like "Fuck, I'll be late for work now" or "Does anyone know which buses are still running?" Stop terrorism being terrifying and you're just some pillock who blew himself up.
It's the same with historical "terrorism". We're all scared of Nazi's and Naziist groups. Want to destroy them overnight? Change the international symbol for toilet to a swastika, and label it a "Nazi". "Where's the Nazi, I need a shit?" Instantly destroys the power in the word and the association it has.
But, no, places like France and Germany continue - over FIFTY YEARS LATER - to ban Nazi-related items. It's a Streisand effect. The best part of my walking-tour of Berlin I did a few years ago - they stop outside a building with a car park. They tell you that's where Hitler's bunker was. You're so fucking terrifying, your legacy is under a car park, mate.
People don't know how to deal with terrorists because they are far too self-centered. "What if *I* was blown up?" Fuck that, what if we allow people to get infamy so easily just because they tried to blow other people up? What if we make terrorism so terrifying they are instantly heroes for our enemies and we cower in fear of them? What if we spend billions on a international manhunt for one man in the public eye proving that MILLIONS of people are scared of one man who did nothing noteworthy himself but orchestrated others? What if we live in a world where terrorists get on the news and science doesn't? Fuck THAT.
Terrorists are cocks. And we're pandering to their media whims, like fucking dickheads. Want to see a proper reaction to terrorism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You beat terrorists by removing the terror. Then they have nothing left.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say "shoe bomber", you tell me if you've heard of him
Yep, I remember him quite well. Do you know what I remember most about him? How he looked dazed, bruised, and bloodied as he was led off the plane. The real impression he made on me was this: after 9/11, anyone who tries to hijack or destroy a plane in flight is now almost certain to get the shit beaten out of them by angry passengers who have determined that it's better to take their chances and fight back. Hell, that alone makes me feel a hell of a lot more confident about airline security than any of
Re: (Score:2)
The genie is already out of the box. It won't stop the real terrorists, but it will keep the knowledge off limits for the general public so it may actually take longer to discover a terrorist. If people forget that they should look out for people stashing a ton of fertilizer for their 1/2 acre land we know it's just going to get worse.
Consummate politician (Score:3)
I would expect nothing less of a true politician. Whether it's the small town politician slapping down even more stop signs after an accident occurred, a school board politician enacting rule after rule that parents and students must jump through in order to protect the school board from litigation, or a senator talking about "removing" a 40+ year old book from the internet, they all have one thing in common: doing things for the sake of being seen doing things, as if they have solutions or actual control over things they do not. It's all about the image. Smoke and mirrors.
Joe Rogan quote from old "Newsradio" TV show (Score:5, Funny)
"You can't take something *off* the Internet; That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool!"
They couldn't stop the AACS cryptographic key (Score:2)
Polititian doesn't understand the internet (Score:2)
There are better books (Score:4, Informative)
If learning to make makeshift firearms, explosives, traps, poisons, and other such things interests you, The Poor Man's James Bond is a better series of books. While I don't agree with taking the Anarchist's Cookbook away categorically, it is a pretty dangerous publication in that the instructions (particularly those dealing with explosives) are not very well written, leave out critical steps and safety information. They could potentially cause serious harm or death to the person trying to make them if they do the process like the author outlines.
Remember, this book was written by a pissed off kid during the Vietnam War. He wasn't an expert with practical hands-on experience. It was something he wrote by researching topics at the public library, and then kept submitting it to publishers until one accepted him.
SAD... just f#$%ing SAD (Score:2)
Politicians really live in their own little bubble worlds when 99% of the ignorant masses are more tech savvy than our own lawmakers. The words "out of touch" seem woefully inadequate to describe the kind of mind numbing ignorance that we've come to expect from our own politicians. What makes it even more depressing is that this doesn't even come remotely as a surprise.
If this doesn't make a case for term limits then I have no idea what would. Some of these people would be ill suited to even push a mop at
Amazon (Score:2)
Tell her to get advice before spouting off (Score:2)
Here https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me
Ban all books and burn down the libraries! (Score:4, Interesting)
~10 years old. Wanted to make a large "Silvesterknaller" (small explosive for New Years).
Went to a public library and looked at a few old books, describing how to make black powder and other things that go boom.
Bought a few chemicals, build an electronic igniter and it went boom. It was too easy to achieve so I lost interest in blowing things up.
It's like the brouhaha about 3D printing guns. Every hardware store has better stock to make something that accelerates a projectile /FacePalm
Re: (Score:2)
http://store.steampowered.com/... [steampowered.com]
Deathtrap is a Tower Defense game with strong action-RPG elements, a game of vicious tricks, killing machines, rotating blades and splattering blood.
meh, no thanks, but thanks for the public offering gentlesir
Re: (Score:2)
Can we ban all the assholes from the internet too? It's such an unpleasant place!
Re: (Score:2)
"Can we ban all the assholes from the internet too? "
First, I would like to ban them from copilot jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell no, I like the anal porn. Why pick on anal porn? You hater.
Re:Not just the Anarchist Cookbook (Score:5, Informative)
Leave the Anarchist Cookbook alone, it is a far greater hazard to anyone trying to use its instructions than to the public. Let Darwin have his way.
Re: (Score:2)
You should be locked away for your own good.
Re: (Score:2)
What IS the point of comments like that anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they going to have sweeping powers to break https so they can check the legality of all your web pages and downloads? Outlaw encryption?
First attack 2nd amend, and then 1st amend (Score:2)
Or more generally, why is anyone surprised when a member of Congress is willing to ignore one right when it inconveniently runs counter to their political ideals, and then later does so with another right? Either a politician supports Constitutional rights or the don't, and when they don't what they allow you to keep is simply a happy coincidence. Unt
PTSD induced irrationality not best way to govern (Score:5, Informative)
To understand her position you need to understand where she's coming from. She's probably one of the few politicians to have seen gun violence first hand. She was there when the SF Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated. She grabbed Harvey Milk's wrist to check for a pulse and her finger entered one of Milk's bullet wounds and was badly shaken by the event.
Basing laws on the irrational emotional reactions of a PTSD sufferer is probably not the best way to go. And it certainly is no excuse for betrayal of the constitution and the deception and manipulation of voters.
1st amendment restricts GOVERNMENT, only. She mean (Score:2)
Feinstein said:
not, in my view, protected by the First Amendment and should be removed
The first amendment says that the federal government may not violate freedom of speech. So saying "not protected by the first amendment " is saying "can be removed by the federal government ".
I think that's covered in fourth grade, so ...
> It is notable that she did not say who should remove these from the internet, or how.
She's either a) quite unfamiliar with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or b) saying it
1st "Congress shall make no law ..." (Score:2)
She says it's "not protected by the first amendment." The first amendment is "Congress shall make no law ..." So the first protects speech FROM CONGRESS. To say it "is not protected by the first amendment " is to say that Congress can ban it.
She then says it "should be removed ". You ask "by whom?" Considering that she just said Congress can do it, the only reasonable interpretation of "should" is that she means Congress should do so, possibly indirectly through a federal agency. That's scar
Re: (Score:3)
I appreciate what you're trying to say here, but it's a bit misplaced.
Feinstein is one of the few people in the country with access to all of the information on the online intelligence gathering done by the federal government. It's part of her job to perform oversight on those programs (not her staff's job, this is one of those things only very specific members of congress can do). If she doesn't understand the internet, that's a serious problem. People have a right to be upset that she hasn't done her jo