...Because it won't.
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS A LOT OF CUSSING AND SWEARING AT THE INCOMPETENCE OF FASCISTBOOK.
That said,
My permanent address is in Alaska, and I have lived in Chicago and Massachusetts over the past 5 years, but I am now in Bangkok. During my various moves, Facebook has been a way to remain connected with a large network of friends and philosophical libertarians that I am friends or at least "fellow travelers" with. Not any more though. Some idiot in Facebook has made the terrible decision to lock users out of their accounts if they can't identify all of their friends, and don't have the same cell phone they opened the account with turned on.
Facebook currently won't let me sign in. I have a new phone number here, and they are goddamn disconnecting me from all of my ideological allies on the one single platform I thought I could rely on. Damn Facebook!!! They asked me to verify my identity using two utterly useless non-identifiers!!! OPTION ONE: By naming one of my friends "tagged in a photo" BUT GUESS WHAT??? That tag might not be correct, Or I might have no idea what my friend looks like as an infant, or I might only know this friend by their avatar picture, or this friend's friends might have labeled a picture of the US Constitution or a statue with their name, or I might only know them because of our shared interests or their political writings!!!
YEAH, REAL PEOPLE ACTUALLY ADD FRIENDS THEY CANNOT PHYSICALLY IDENTIFY! (And what about blind people, or people who simply have bad memories for names?) Since Facebook's system isn't an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), it can't tell when people are actually tagged correctly, (or why the hell you became friends with someone), ...so if FB uses this as a means of identity verification they are royally fucking people over! ...People like me!
Damn Facebook! Can't they just allow people to keep their accounts secure using the time-tested and logical way of sending email confirmations? If someone hacks both email accounts of mine, then they can damned well have my facebook account as well! ...It's certainly useless to me like this!
Moving on: OPTION TWO: (for "verifying my identity") is for them to send a message to my U.S. cell phone number. Well, guess what? I'm not using my 907-area-code cell phone in Bangkok. I have a SIM card here with a new Bangkok phone number that I keep charged with cash(baht)!
And is that any of Facebook's business? NO. I wish they would quit trying to "track me for my own good"! MESSAGE TO FACEBOOK: Just provide the service you purport to provide, and stay the fuck out of my life, OK?
If I can't sign into FB when it is most useful to me, then how the hell does it mean a damned thing to me?
Answer: it doesn't. It minorly fucks up my life by giving me a false sense of traveling connectedness that doesn't really exist, and then denies me service when I need it most: when I'm in a foreign country where I don't speak the native language, and I have no other good means of keeping in touch with my family and friends. Moreover, there are some people I'd really like to communicate with about life here in Bangkok whom I only know from facebook, (beyond the aquiantance stage).
FACEBOOK: SOCIAL NETWORKING ACCOMPLICES TO THE "OVER-REDUNDANT-SECURITY-ABOVE-ALL-ELSE" ASSHOLES OF THE WORLD!
Crack these books, you bureaucracy-minded government-school-miseducated morons:
"Out of Control" by Kevin Kelly
"Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy (Pay particular attention to the section on the over-securing of computer account passwords.)
Please, Facebook, apply some of the universal principles of privacy, nonintervention, anonymity, and decentralization to your business. Then, you won't lose people like myself as users.
Thanks!
-Jake
International calling country code: 66
Bangkok phone number: 08-9445-3689
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Roadside Bomb Escalates Mexican Drug War; Possible Solutions to Violence Remain Unmentioned by Authoritarian Politicians and "Experts"
Yahoo News notes that the "drug war" has gotten more violent, after a recent bombing.
The article goes into a lot of depth about how this happening further extends the costs of drug prohibition, but it doesn't mention the word prohibition at all. It leaves unmentioned the one single viable option for eliminating all such violence. After all, the option that eliminates this state-caused violence swiftly and completely is complete drug legalization, and complete drug legalization is not an option.
After all, although legalizing all drugs would instantly eliminate the violence associated with the in-demand black market in drugs, it would also do several other things:
1) It would undermine the ignorant philosophy of authoritarianism that most politicians use to get elected.
2) It would mean that the courts of lies (and the parasites who make their livings in them) would need to find a new means of providing for themselves.
3) It would mean that police could use their manpower eliminating child prostitution, rape, assault, theft, and murder: the kind of crimes that are difficult to solve, but require great forensic work for very little "payoff"...
4) It would mean an end to the practice of "siezing" (that is, stealing), private property on account of its being associated with illegal contraband
For the four reasons above, no politician in a position to legalize drugs is willing to talk about legalization. Thus, they damn us all to an incrementally-more-totalitarian system of government, and increasing levels of cartelized violence necessary to circumvent prohibitionist law enforcement. (Educated law enforcement universally opposes prohibition.)
Now I know that the idiotic statist voters (People who voted for Kerry, Bush, Obama, or McCain), and idiotic statist politicians (examples: Kerry, Bush, Obama, McCain) all have their bogus reasons for not wanting to legalize drugs. The most common of these objections is: "It would send the wrong message to the children, and there would be too many kids getting addicted to drugs."
But what message does our current system send to children? Let's think about that:
1) Inanimate objects have the ability to control you, to such an extent that you need to be prevented (saved, that is) from exercizing your own bad judgment, by government force. Even excepting the implication that so many people have bad day-to-day judgment, this conclusion is not born out by any credible research, and not born out by scientific fact. (I don't have time to get into that here, but there are many long volumes that have belabored this point, for anyone who is literate and curious. One of the better ones is "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters.)
2) Whoever gets elected has the right to do whatever they wish, even if it violates the individual right to own private property. (I know that the prohibitionists will say that drugs have a large propensity for misuse. But certainly not more than alcohol, guns, gene-modification laboratories, and cars do, and we simply expect people to take responsibility for the use of those dangerous pieces of private property. In all those cases, we only punish someone if they are found to have injured or harmed SOMEONE ELSE in a trial by a jury of their peers.)
Historically, drug abuse doesn't even begin to approach the numbers of innocent people killed by the two prior beliefs. This is because those beliefs lead to "democide" or "mass murder by government".
Unfree governments, like our own, engage in mass imprisonment for victimless crimes. But when they become totalitarian (holding absolute power, with very uncompetitive elections), they engage in democide.
I'd rather that half of all adults were addicted to heroin as kids (which wouldn't happen even if heroin were legalized), than prohibition continue for one more day. Because the violence caused by prohibition damages innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs, far more than the drug use itself, and it also destroys the most precious commodity of all: the free market, and individual freedom, as a whole.
Of course, the solution to the problem is verboten by our public masters, to the extent that Yahoo's hack journalists can't even mention it on their front page story. ...Too many politically stupid people with a vested interest in the system would get mad!
...Hence, the desperate need for a new American revolution in thinking.
The article goes into a lot of depth about how this happening further extends the costs of drug prohibition, but it doesn't mention the word prohibition at all. It leaves unmentioned the one single viable option for eliminating all such violence. After all, the option that eliminates this state-caused violence swiftly and completely is complete drug legalization, and complete drug legalization is not an option.
After all, although legalizing all drugs would instantly eliminate the violence associated with the in-demand black market in drugs, it would also do several other things:
1) It would undermine the ignorant philosophy of authoritarianism that most politicians use to get elected.
2) It would mean that the courts of lies (and the parasites who make their livings in them) would need to find a new means of providing for themselves.
3) It would mean that police could use their manpower eliminating child prostitution, rape, assault, theft, and murder: the kind of crimes that are difficult to solve, but require great forensic work for very little "payoff"...
4) It would mean an end to the practice of "siezing" (that is, stealing), private property on account of its being associated with illegal contraband
For the four reasons above, no politician in a position to legalize drugs is willing to talk about legalization. Thus, they damn us all to an incrementally-more-totalitarian system of government, and increasing levels of cartelized violence necessary to circumvent prohibitionist law enforcement. (Educated law enforcement universally opposes prohibition.)
Now I know that the idiotic statist voters (People who voted for Kerry, Bush, Obama, or McCain), and idiotic statist politicians (examples: Kerry, Bush, Obama, McCain) all have their bogus reasons for not wanting to legalize drugs. The most common of these objections is: "It would send the wrong message to the children, and there would be too many kids getting addicted to drugs."
But what message does our current system send to children? Let's think about that:
1) Inanimate objects have the ability to control you, to such an extent that you need to be prevented (saved, that is) from exercizing your own bad judgment, by government force. Even excepting the implication that so many people have bad day-to-day judgment, this conclusion is not born out by any credible research, and not born out by scientific fact. (I don't have time to get into that here, but there are many long volumes that have belabored this point, for anyone who is literate and curious. One of the better ones is "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters.)
2) Whoever gets elected has the right to do whatever they wish, even if it violates the individual right to own private property. (I know that the prohibitionists will say that drugs have a large propensity for misuse. But certainly not more than alcohol, guns, gene-modification laboratories, and cars do, and we simply expect people to take responsibility for the use of those dangerous pieces of private property. In all those cases, we only punish someone if they are found to have injured or harmed SOMEONE ELSE in a trial by a jury of their peers.)
Historically, drug abuse doesn't even begin to approach the numbers of innocent people killed by the two prior beliefs. This is because those beliefs lead to "democide" or "mass murder by government".
Unfree governments, like our own, engage in mass imprisonment for victimless crimes. But when they become totalitarian (holding absolute power, with very uncompetitive elections), they engage in democide.
I'd rather that half of all adults were addicted to heroin as kids (which wouldn't happen even if heroin were legalized), than prohibition continue for one more day. Because the violence caused by prohibition damages innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs, far more than the drug use itself, and it also destroys the most precious commodity of all: the free market, and individual freedom, as a whole.
Of course, the solution to the problem is verboten by our public masters, to the extent that Yahoo's hack journalists can't even mention it on their front page story. ...Too many politically stupid people with a vested interest in the system would get mad!
...Hence, the desperate need for a new American revolution in thinking.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
A Supreme Court Justice That Understands The Concept of Justice?
My suggestions for the next Supreme Court Justice:
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Roger Roots, JD. PhD
Legal Philosopher Marc Stevens
David T. Hardy
All of these people have impressive bodies of legal writings that indicate a deep respect for the US Constitution, and a deep understanding of it. Contrary to the mental midgets being trotted out by the establishment, they also believe in individual rights.
Of course, since we don't have a government, but instead have Federal Reserve Serfdom, noone who is capable of thinking for themselves will ever be considered for the position of Supreme Court Justice. PLEASE! Scalia thinks that our individual rights "come from god". LOL!! Sandra Day O'Connor (a flaming liberal who supports government "trust-busting" and simultaneously the FDA!) penned a losing dissenting opinion in Kelo!
You have to be "almost a vegetable" combined with "slavishly conformist and servile to authority" in order to even be considered for the job. Chuck Shumer got angry when Roberts wouldn't cave in and agree that "the interstate commerce clause allows the government to do anything it wants to". (Shumer was upset that one out of the nine justices might not believe that the government should have the arbitrary power to steal people's private property, if the legislature deems that they are too small of a minority to defend themselves with the vote! All because Roberts said that the issue that violated Raich's property (marijuana) ownership rights at the Supreme Court level, "was still open to debate"!)
This country is circling the drain, because the judiciary has consumed the jury.
All the people I mentioned believe in "We the People", and "We the Jury".
Hence, they challenge the central bank's supreme oligarchy and whim-based-law, and they will not be considered. Too bad virtually every other poster here is too mentally incompetent and willfully servile to stand up for their rights, and vote libertarian!
Bon Voyage, Suckers! Your Goldman Sachs legislative credit card bill is coming due! It means your kids will grow up as slaves (to the uber-wealthy) who are totally unable to save any money, due to the plummeting value of the dollar. All you had to do was acknowledge the rights of man that Sam Adams and the Founders fought so hard for, but it was too much for your little conformist brains! Enjoy your anchor-ride to the bottom when the rest of the world finally decides to dump its Federal Reserve Notes on us all in exchange for whatever goods and services they can get before it's worthless!
Too bad most people reading this are not even aware of the "Free Competition in Currency Act". If it were passed right now, we might actually get to avoid chaos in the streets. Notice I said chaos, not "anarchy", because with giant government, there is more chaos than there would be with zero government. Sadly, I have to pray for anarchy now, since the sheeple have no understanding of a government that protects private property.
I'd continue my diatribe, but the "thought police" are at my door, I'd better go see what they want...
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Roger Roots, JD. PhD
Legal Philosopher Marc Stevens
David T. Hardy
All of these people have impressive bodies of legal writings that indicate a deep respect for the US Constitution, and a deep understanding of it. Contrary to the mental midgets being trotted out by the establishment, they also believe in individual rights.
Of course, since we don't have a government, but instead have Federal Reserve Serfdom, noone who is capable of thinking for themselves will ever be considered for the position of Supreme Court Justice. PLEASE! Scalia thinks that our individual rights "come from god". LOL!! Sandra Day O'Connor (a flaming liberal who supports government "trust-busting" and simultaneously the FDA!) penned a losing dissenting opinion in Kelo!
You have to be "almost a vegetable" combined with "slavishly conformist and servile to authority" in order to even be considered for the job. Chuck Shumer got angry when Roberts wouldn't cave in and agree that "the interstate commerce clause allows the government to do anything it wants to". (Shumer was upset that one out of the nine justices might not believe that the government should have the arbitrary power to steal people's private property, if the legislature deems that they are too small of a minority to defend themselves with the vote! All because Roberts said that the issue that violated Raich's property (marijuana) ownership rights at the Supreme Court level, "was still open to debate"!)
This country is circling the drain, because the judiciary has consumed the jury.
All the people I mentioned believe in "We the People", and "We the Jury".
Hence, they challenge the central bank's supreme oligarchy and whim-based-law, and they will not be considered. Too bad virtually every other poster here is too mentally incompetent and willfully servile to stand up for their rights, and vote libertarian!
Bon Voyage, Suckers! Your Goldman Sachs legislative credit card bill is coming due! It means your kids will grow up as slaves (to the uber-wealthy) who are totally unable to save any money, due to the plummeting value of the dollar. All you had to do was acknowledge the rights of man that Sam Adams and the Founders fought so hard for, but it was too much for your little conformist brains! Enjoy your anchor-ride to the bottom when the rest of the world finally decides to dump its Federal Reserve Notes on us all in exchange for whatever goods and services they can get before it's worthless!
Too bad most people reading this are not even aware of the "Free Competition in Currency Act". If it were passed right now, we might actually get to avoid chaos in the streets. Notice I said chaos, not "anarchy", because with giant government, there is more chaos than there would be with zero government. Sadly, I have to pray for anarchy now, since the sheeple have no understanding of a government that protects private property.
I'd continue my diatribe, but the "thought police" are at my door, I'd better go see what they want...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
