http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21023380/
FTA: "SAN FRANCISCO - Federal agents said Thursday they shut down a factory that made marijuana-laced barbecue sauce, chocolate-covered pretzels and other "enhanced" snacks intended for medical users of the drug."
Nice find Matt E.
jOTs
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Art of eWar
Here are some snippits on how, if you want to learn to argue/debate/troll with people online.
Know Your Enemy
There’s an old saying that “knowing is half the battle.” While I personally prefer my own variation “Knowing that your opponent is an idiot is half the battle”, it can still be quite useful to know your opponent’s strengths and weaknesses as well as your own. Obviously if you are going to prey on emotion (discussed below) and use it to your advantage, you need to know precisely which nerves to tweak and which toes to step on.
You also need to know who your enemy is allied (friends) with, and most importantly what the central issue is in the war. Knowing your enemy and their allies seems like an obvious point but a mistake here is often fatal. The last thing you want to do is criticize an A-list blogger or some other heavy hitter in your niche, without knowing who you’re calling out. That’s not to say you can never do battle with the big dogs, just be sure the risk you’re taking is a calculated one. “What the hell do you know about search engines? What makes you think you’re an expert?” …. “Oh, you actually ARE a Google engineer huh? Uh…. well.. you’re still a moron” is an embarrassment that would be tough to live down.
Go to Extremes
When engaging your enemy use logic and reasoning to dismantle your opposition’s defenses. Expand their statements or positions to the most broad and extreme cases possible. Statements like “Using that logic, you could justify stealing candy from a baby!” or “So you’re suggesting we just kill off all Mac users?” are mini-victories all on their own and almost impossible to defend.
Prey on EmotionStir up emotional responses and force your opponent to divert from their planned course of action. Remarks such as “Didn’t your mom do the same thing you’re criticizing?” or “Don’t you think this is really stemming from your lack of self worth and subsequent overcompensation for your inferior sexual stature?” can send your foe into a frenzied state so far off the beaten path that they’ll never recover. They’ll spend so much time lashing out at you personally in their blind rage that you should easily be able to decimate their position. When dropping these types of bombs, though, be sure they are precisely targeted and preferably relevant. There’s nothing worse than one of these puppies blowing up in your face.
Stick to Your Guns
An often overlooked principle of eWar is to never lose sight of the central issue. Many times (especially if you’ve recently used the previous tactic against them) your opponent will try to distract you or divert your energies by bringing up irrelevant topics or throwing up smoke screens. Never let this phase you. Don’t get bogged down and waste your energy on some trivial point or defending your mother’s brother’s dog’s honor. Keep your message clear and simple. Pound your main point home and you’ll often win the support of any observers, and may even wear your opponent down to the point of conceding.
Choose the Battle Ground
It can be quite difficult to see an eWar coming. The most innocent remarks or actions can spark the fiercest of battles. However, a seasoned eWarrior can learn to distinguish the warning signs and be prepared when the fighting starts. Make sure your first attack is targeted where it will do the most harm. That often means attacking someone before they expect it but may also involve pausing to regroup long enough to establish a game plan if you’re on the receiving end of the attack. Forcing an opponent to do battle on your terms can weaken your enemy before the eWar even begins and will often limit your casualties. If you can move the war from your opponents blog to a neutral site such as Digg, or better yet to your own blog, You take away your opponent’s greatest weapons, the edit and delete buttons.
Lure and Ambush
Use seemingly innocent questions like “wouldn’t you agree that (insert obvious and inarguable point here)” to lure your opponent down the path you’ve chosen. Once they take the bait, use statements like “Since (once again obvious point), wouldn’t you also agree that (insert your point here)” to spring the trap. Once your opponent begins agreeing with you on any level it’s almost always game, set, match. While not all arguments will be this easy, an effective ambush can often lead to swift and efficient victories.
Know When It’s Over
Recognizing the end of a war is just as critical as any action or tactic used in the height of battle. If you’ve won the war, don’t continue to pummel a now helpless opponent. You will tarnish your victory and lose the respect you just spent so much effort winning. If you’ve lost, graciously accept defeat, maintain some dignity (if possible), and live to fight another day. There’s nothing more pitiful than someone continuing to flail away when the battle field is empty and the war is lost. Make sure that pitiful person is your opponent, not you.
And there you have it. The Art of eWar. Use this knowledge wisely and remember, with great power comes great responsibility. If you think I’ve missed the target or left out a critical law, let me know in the comments bellow. Who knows… maybe you’ll get a chance to put these tactics to the test.
JoTs
Shamlessly ripped from: http://bloggingexperiment.com/archives/the-art-of-ewar.php
Know Your Enemy
There’s an old saying that “knowing is half the battle.” While I personally prefer my own variation “Knowing that your opponent is an idiot is half the battle”, it can still be quite useful to know your opponent’s strengths and weaknesses as well as your own. Obviously if you are going to prey on emotion (discussed below) and use it to your advantage, you need to know precisely which nerves to tweak and which toes to step on.
You also need to know who your enemy is allied (friends) with, and most importantly what the central issue is in the war. Knowing your enemy and their allies seems like an obvious point but a mistake here is often fatal. The last thing you want to do is criticize an A-list blogger or some other heavy hitter in your niche, without knowing who you’re calling out. That’s not to say you can never do battle with the big dogs, just be sure the risk you’re taking is a calculated one. “What the hell do you know about search engines? What makes you think you’re an expert?” …. “Oh, you actually ARE a Google engineer huh? Uh…. well.. you’re still a moron” is an embarrassment that would be tough to live down.
Go to Extremes
When engaging your enemy use logic and reasoning to dismantle your opposition’s defenses. Expand their statements or positions to the most broad and extreme cases possible. Statements like “Using that logic, you could justify stealing candy from a baby!” or “So you’re suggesting we just kill off all Mac users?” are mini-victories all on their own and almost impossible to defend.
Prey on EmotionStir up emotional responses and force your opponent to divert from their planned course of action. Remarks such as “Didn’t your mom do the same thing you’re criticizing?” or “Don’t you think this is really stemming from your lack of self worth and subsequent overcompensation for your inferior sexual stature?” can send your foe into a frenzied state so far off the beaten path that they’ll never recover. They’ll spend so much time lashing out at you personally in their blind rage that you should easily be able to decimate their position. When dropping these types of bombs, though, be sure they are precisely targeted and preferably relevant. There’s nothing worse than one of these puppies blowing up in your face.
Stick to Your Guns
An often overlooked principle of eWar is to never lose sight of the central issue. Many times (especially if you’ve recently used the previous tactic against them) your opponent will try to distract you or divert your energies by bringing up irrelevant topics or throwing up smoke screens. Never let this phase you. Don’t get bogged down and waste your energy on some trivial point or defending your mother’s brother’s dog’s honor. Keep your message clear and simple. Pound your main point home and you’ll often win the support of any observers, and may even wear your opponent down to the point of conceding.
Choose the Battle Ground
It can be quite difficult to see an eWar coming. The most innocent remarks or actions can spark the fiercest of battles. However, a seasoned eWarrior can learn to distinguish the warning signs and be prepared when the fighting starts. Make sure your first attack is targeted where it will do the most harm. That often means attacking someone before they expect it but may also involve pausing to regroup long enough to establish a game plan if you’re on the receiving end of the attack. Forcing an opponent to do battle on your terms can weaken your enemy before the eWar even begins and will often limit your casualties. If you can move the war from your opponents blog to a neutral site such as Digg, or better yet to your own blog, You take away your opponent’s greatest weapons, the edit and delete buttons.
Lure and Ambush
Use seemingly innocent questions like “wouldn’t you agree that (insert obvious and inarguable point here)” to lure your opponent down the path you’ve chosen. Once they take the bait, use statements like “Since (once again obvious point), wouldn’t you also agree that (insert your point here)” to spring the trap. Once your opponent begins agreeing with you on any level it’s almost always game, set, match. While not all arguments will be this easy, an effective ambush can often lead to swift and efficient victories.
Know When It’s Over
Recognizing the end of a war is just as critical as any action or tactic used in the height of battle. If you’ve won the war, don’t continue to pummel a now helpless opponent. You will tarnish your victory and lose the respect you just spent so much effort winning. If you’ve lost, graciously accept defeat, maintain some dignity (if possible), and live to fight another day. There’s nothing more pitiful than someone continuing to flail away when the battle field is empty and the war is lost. Make sure that pitiful person is your opponent, not you.
And there you have it. The Art of eWar. Use this knowledge wisely and remember, with great power comes great responsibility. If you think I’ve missed the target or left out a critical law, let me know in the comments bellow. Who knows… maybe you’ll get a chance to put these tactics to the test.
JoTs
Shamlessly ripped from: http://bloggingexperiment.com/archives/the-art-of-ewar.php
I don't feel sorry for this poor schmuck
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/immigrant.money/index.html
FTA: "For 11 years, Pedro Zapeta, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, lived his version of the American dream in Stuart, Florida: washing dishes and living frugally to bring money back to his home country.......Zapeta, who speaks no English, said he didn't know he was running afoul of U.S. law by failing to declare he was carrying more than $10,000 with him. Anyone entering or leaving the country with more than $10,000 has to fill out a one-page form declaring the money to U.S. customs."
So, you worked here, illegally mind you, for 11 years, saved up $59,000 of non-taxed, and debatably illegal, earnings and upon trying to leave the country, after mooching off of our economy, you get caught and are upset that you can't have your money back.
orly Mr. Zapeta. Are you that dense? Well, he probably is more ignorant than dense, but who's counting. Why are you complaining now? "Oh no, I got caught robbing a bank, and now I'm in prison!"
And if you take his side, fuck you. He is a criminal.
The blame doesn't rest solely on the said guy's shoulders: why the eff did the employers get away with this? Why isn't there such a stiff fine/penalty for the practice of hiring illegal immigrants that the 'demand' goes down for the illegals 'supplying' it. It's just backwards supply/demand economics.
On a more heart-felt note, it does suck for him that he lost his last 11 years of earnings without the chance to get it back (ftmp). It would be hard to deal with that, but you kind of need to know how the laws work where you choose to live for 11 years. Nothing is free, period, or the dish-washing companies would have a volunteer status.
JotS
FTA: "For 11 years, Pedro Zapeta, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, lived his version of the American dream in Stuart, Florida: washing dishes and living frugally to bring money back to his home country.......Zapeta, who speaks no English, said he didn't know he was running afoul of U.S. law by failing to declare he was carrying more than $10,000 with him. Anyone entering or leaving the country with more than $10,000 has to fill out a one-page form declaring the money to U.S. customs."
So, you worked here, illegally mind you, for 11 years, saved up $59,000 of non-taxed, and debatably illegal, earnings and upon trying to leave the country, after mooching off of our economy, you get caught and are upset that you can't have your money back.
orly Mr. Zapeta. Are you that dense? Well, he probably is more ignorant than dense, but who's counting. Why are you complaining now? "Oh no, I got caught robbing a bank, and now I'm in prison!"
And if you take his side, fuck you. He is a criminal.
The blame doesn't rest solely on the said guy's shoulders: why the eff did the employers get away with this? Why isn't there such a stiff fine/penalty for the practice of hiring illegal immigrants that the 'demand' goes down for the illegals 'supplying' it. It's just backwards supply/demand economics.
On a more heart-felt note, it does suck for him that he lost his last 11 years of earnings without the chance to get it back (ftmp). It would be hard to deal with that, but you kind of need to know how the laws work where you choose to live for 11 years. Nothing is free, period, or the dish-washing companies would have a volunteer status.
JotS
Health insurance companies saved me from cancer
http://businessshrink.biz/psychologyofbusiness/2007/09/27/employees-fired-and-fined-for-smoking-obesity-and-blood-test-results/
Basically, due to the rising cost of health insurance, some employers are starting to either not hire smokers or people that are overweight or fine them on their checks for the added insurance costs.
Yes it's legal; no it's not moral.
jotS
Basically, due to the rising cost of health insurance, some employers are starting to either not hire smokers or people that are overweight or fine them on their checks for the added insurance costs.
Yes it's legal; no it's not moral.
jotS
Chillax Mr. Lizzard
http://laist.com/2007/09/22/yes_this_is_for.php
Very cool...I'd like to see some more of these for fun.
joTs
Very cool...I'd like to see some more of these for fun.
joTs
Thursday, September 27, 2007
OiNKing may be risky
http://www.slyck.com/story1585_OiNK_Infiltrated_Media_Defender_Leak_Shows
FTA: "While investigating these e-mails to see the extent of what this information holds, Slyck has learned there are emails indicating OiNK, a popular private BitTorrent tracker, was possibly infiltrated by Media Defender."
Great...
We had to know this was coming, though...
FTA: "While investigating these e-mails to see the extent of what this information holds, Slyck has learned there are emails indicating OiNK, a popular private BitTorrent tracker, was possibly infiltrated by Media Defender."
Great...
We had to know this was coming, though...
Chinese Authorities Execute 10 Million Recalled Toys
The travesty! I wonder how Ken feels about this...
RIAA's days are numbered
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070926-judge-quashes-two-riaa-subpoenas-against-florida-students.html
FTA: "A Florida lawyer convinced a judge yesterday to quash several RIAA subpoenas directed against anonymous University of South Florida students. The subpoenas, which use the secretive ex parte discovery process, were shot down by the judge on narrow technical grounds that seem limited to this particular case. Still, attorney Michael Wasylik tells Ars that his victory still matters because it shows that RIAA attorneys "have to obey the rules" when they use the court system. "
Finally people are starting to recognize that the ex parte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte) subpoenas are wrong, plain and simple. You can't just throw around subpoenas because you 'think' people are sharing music, of which is debatably illegal - sharing music, files, or anything under any kind of copywright.
Which brings me to my next point of what exactly is 'Fair Use' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_%28US_trademark_law%29) and why can't they see that if you aren't making any money off of something, then you aren't breaking the 'Fair Use" clause.
It will be a joyous day when the big record labels have to stop trying to force us how to listen/watch, when to listen/watch, and on what device to listen/watch whatever we want.
As anyone from Digg.com can attest to, FUCK THE RIAA.
jOts
FTA: "A Florida lawyer convinced a judge yesterday to quash several RIAA subpoenas directed against anonymous University of South Florida students. The subpoenas, which use the secretive ex parte discovery process, were shot down by the judge on narrow technical grounds that seem limited to this particular case. Still, attorney Michael Wasylik tells Ars that his victory still matters because it shows that RIAA attorneys "have to obey the rules" when they use the court system. "
Finally people are starting to recognize that the ex parte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte) subpoenas are wrong, plain and simple. You can't just throw around subpoenas because you 'think' people are sharing music, of which is debatably illegal - sharing music, files, or anything under any kind of copywright.
Which brings me to my next point of what exactly is 'Fair Use' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_%28US_trademark_law%29) and why can't they see that if you aren't making any money off of something, then you aren't breaking the 'Fair Use" clause.
It will be a joyous day when the big record labels have to stop trying to force us how to listen/watch, when to listen/watch, and on what device to listen/watch whatever we want.
As anyone from Digg.com can attest to, FUCK THE RIAA.
jOts
Leave well enough alone
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1988.asp
FTA: "In late June, users of St. Louis CopTalk, an unofficial forum for Saint Louis area law enforcement, posted Darrow's home address along with messages containing apparent death threats in retaliation for the young motorist's taping of a DUI roadblock in November and a traffic ticket in June. One CopTalk user repeating the address wrote, "Every copper, City and County, should etch this little punks [sic] name in their [sic] memory. Brett Darrow, [address deleted], city of St. Louis." (View screen capture of post) "
Interesting...so now, a cop uses more force than what is necessary on a kid, if you will, harasses him for no reason other than the said cop's own self-righteous mentalities, threatens the kid with fake reasons to take him to jail, then gets fired for all of it being caught on tape. Sounds like protecting and serving to me.
/sarcasm
Now the other cops are upset at the kid for getting their asshole buddy fired, so they basically are doing whatever they can to harass him further.
Now...where did this $40,000 go?
jots
FTA: "In late June, users of St. Louis CopTalk, an unofficial forum for Saint Louis area law enforcement, posted Darrow's home address along with messages containing apparent death threats in retaliation for the young motorist's taping of a DUI roadblock in November and a traffic ticket in June. One CopTalk user repeating the address wrote, "Every copper, City and County, should etch this little punks [sic] name in their [sic] memory. Brett Darrow, [address deleted], city of St. Louis." (View screen capture of post) "
Interesting...so now, a cop uses more force than what is necessary on a kid, if you will, harasses him for no reason other than the said cop's own self-righteous mentalities, threatens the kid with fake reasons to take him to jail, then gets fired for all of it being caught on tape. Sounds like protecting and serving to me.
/sarcasm
Now the other cops are upset at the kid for getting their asshole buddy fired, so they basically are doing whatever they can to harass him further.
Now...where did this $40,000 go?
jots
What would you do with $1B?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502675_pf.html
FTA: "Since 2004, State has paid Blackwater $833,673,316, compared with Defense Department contracts of $101,219,261."
O.o
orly...So that's why we need another $190b; Blackwater isn't even a public company; I get it now.
Granted, we need someone over there, but I need to find the link where our country paid BW around $800k for some screws, or something.
FTA: "Since 2004, State has paid Blackwater $833,673,316, compared with Defense Department contracts of $101,219,261."
O.o
orly...So that's why we need another $190b; Blackwater isn't even a public company; I get it now.
Granted, we need someone over there, but I need to find the link where our country paid BW around $800k for some screws, or something.
F**k Busk = ok?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/63555/#more
FTA: "The Sept. 21 editorial of The Rocky Mountain Collegian was a taunt: TASER THIS...FUCK BUSH. Students groups like the College Republicans and faculty have in fact, obliged -- insofar as they are legally able -- to take down the students responsible."
I'm not a big fan of blatently making fun of our president. I don't know if I think that this should be a punishable offence, as freedom of speech kicks in here, but do you really have to stoop to the childishness of publishing "F**k Bush" in a collegiate newspaper. I think it is in poor form. Newspapers are supposed to be about journalism, with a splash of opinion - not the opposite.
The President has done some crazy things in his term[s], but either way, stooping to the extent of derrogotary remarks seems to be the wrong way to get your point across - you might as well just say "Bush is fat and ugly". Childish stabs for the sake of getting a rise out of people - both on your side and off - is just immature.
Although, in all fairness, this isn't a newspaper for a college, so FUCK BUSH.
Jots
FTA: "The Sept. 21 editorial of The Rocky Mountain Collegian was a taunt: TASER THIS...FUCK BUSH. Students groups like the College Republicans and faculty have in fact, obliged -- insofar as they are legally able -- to take down the students responsible."
I'm not a big fan of blatently making fun of our president. I don't know if I think that this should be a punishable offence, as freedom of speech kicks in here, but do you really have to stoop to the childishness of publishing "F**k Bush" in a collegiate newspaper. I think it is in poor form. Newspapers are supposed to be about journalism, with a splash of opinion - not the opposite.
The President has done some crazy things in his term[s], but either way, stooping to the extent of derrogotary remarks seems to be the wrong way to get your point across - you might as well just say "Bush is fat and ugly". Childish stabs for the sake of getting a rise out of people - both on your side and off - is just immature.
Although, in all fairness, this isn't a newspaper for a college, so FUCK BUSH.
Jots
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
How much $$$ is enough already?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/26/iraq.funding/
FTA: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates is asking for nearly $190 billion from Congress to help fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an increase from the amount requested earlier this year."
Are you kidding me? Another $190 billion? What happened to the billions that we've already spent funding this ridiculous war? Why are we still there?
Can't we just do like all responsible males do and just pull out?
Jots
Democracy = slavery (appearantly)
My roommate and I had an interesting mini-conversation on the ride home yesterday pertaining to how much should the government interfere with our lives.
We brought up the topics of illegal drugs, immigration, as well as seat belt laws (coupled with basic traffic laws). Interestingly enough, the seat belt topic was the most interesting. Why should we have a govt where they (read: powers that be) are, for all intensive purposes, mandating that we wear their little car-harness? Of course, this isn't the best mootable topic, as it's plain to see why we should wear them. They do, in fact, save lives - arguing that is laughable at best, and pathetic, at worst.
The question still stands:
Why should our government tell us what is best for us? Who regulates them? Why do I need someone telling me what kind of soda-pop is 'bad' for me, so they take it off the market. Why do I need an entity that I can't stand up against telling me what substances are 'good' or 'bad' for me, or more easily put, what is 'right' or 'wrong'?
I'm not trying to digress back to natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection), or even 'survival of the fittest', but why not let people either advance how they choose, or destroy themselves, again, as they choose. Telling me that drinking alcohol is 'ok', because very wealthy people made it legal a long while ago, but smoking marijuana is against the law is just perposterous (not to mention growing Hemp (of which, you can't even get 'high' from)).
We need one of the Presidential canditates to step up and challenge this with full force. Some may say that Ron Paul is the answer, but I can't condone that attitude. No one-man-force is going to change the laws in this country, except for our current ruler (Patriot Act, et. al.). We need the people to step up and help make my vision a reality.
In short, I don't need the govt to tell me what is right and wrong when it comes to non-violent 'crimes' and what I want to do with my body. Isn't abortion legal in most states? If a woman can legally abort a baby, why can't she, in the same breath of "yes, shove that 'hanger up there", light up a doobie?
Sorry, that was a tad graphic.
Jots
We brought up the topics of illegal drugs, immigration, as well as seat belt laws (coupled with basic traffic laws). Interestingly enough, the seat belt topic was the most interesting. Why should we have a govt where they (read: powers that be) are, for all intensive purposes, mandating that we wear their little car-harness? Of course, this isn't the best mootable topic, as it's plain to see why we should wear them. They do, in fact, save lives - arguing that is laughable at best, and pathetic, at worst.
The question still stands:
Why should our government tell us what is best for us? Who regulates them? Why do I need someone telling me what kind of soda-pop is 'bad' for me, so they take it off the market. Why do I need an entity that I can't stand up against telling me what substances are 'good' or 'bad' for me, or more easily put, what is 'right' or 'wrong'?
I'm not trying to digress back to natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection), or even 'survival of the fittest', but why not let people either advance how they choose, or destroy themselves, again, as they choose. Telling me that drinking alcohol is 'ok', because very wealthy people made it legal a long while ago, but smoking marijuana is against the law is just perposterous (not to mention growing Hemp (of which, you can't even get 'high' from)).
We need one of the Presidential canditates to step up and challenge this with full force. Some may say that Ron Paul is the answer, but I can't condone that attitude. No one-man-force is going to change the laws in this country, except for our current ruler (Patriot Act, et. al.). We need the people to step up and help make my vision a reality.
In short, I don't need the govt to tell me what is right and wrong when it comes to non-violent 'crimes' and what I want to do with my body. Isn't abortion legal in most states? If a woman can legally abort a baby, why can't she, in the same breath of "yes, shove that 'hanger up there", light up a doobie?
Sorry, that was a tad graphic.
Jots
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
