Slashdot Mirror

Yep. Obama's church got caught stumping for him (remember the "God Damn America" sermon?) and the IRS did absolutely nothing about that. Despite the fact that the larger church organization literally had Obama give a speech to their members. (Yes, Protestants have a church organization just like Catholics.)

Guess whether this went anywhere? Of course not, Obama's IRS only goes after conservatives.

first time a post made me knee-jerk donate to a lobby

His e-mail is: sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us

The part of the constitution he would be looking for would be the first ammendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

And the charity I asked him to support is: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

I hope many of you join me in e-mailing him.

Times like these require action.

Who can we support and donate $$ to if we want to fight this kind of thing? This community bought a full page ad for Firefox, so surely we can make some impact when our basic freedoms are being squashed.

I'll update my ACLU membership, even though I think they are too partisan towards the Democrat party.

What other organizations stand against a government that is slowly combining the worst aspects of '50s-style social repression with 1984 intrusion into our lives?

Here are two

      ACLU

        Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Being a far left wing liberal, I donate to the ACLU and Americans United, Being a humanist, I also frequently donate blood. I feel that this is a more tangible gift than cash.

Looks like Pat Robertson does have God's ear.

• Americans United for the separation of church and state
• ACLU
• EFF Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

• imprisoning American citizen terrorists indefinitely without trial or even without access to lawyers,
• and for sending that Canadian Muslim (All Muslims are terrorists!) to be tortured by Syria.

• Tommy Chong's in the federal pen for selling glass pipes over the internet,
• and now that you've made it difficult for the terminally ill to get pot despite it being legal under California state law,
• and are making sure those terminally ill people can't die with dignity in Oregon

It's worse than you think. Election Systems and Software, the company that builds, owns and largely runs many of the voting machines used in the US (and 80% of those used in Nebraska) was at one time headed and is still partially owned by Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska - who, surprisingly, won unprecedented victories in his state against an incumbent Democrat governor, winning by the largest landslide ever and taking the majority among demographics that had never voted Republican in the past.Hagel had avoided reporting his ownership, and then the whole trail started to come out into the open. It also turns out that Election Systems and Software was heavily funded by the conservative Christian fundamentalist Ahmanson family.

Their government is totally different from ours in the sense of a strong religious background that is the foundation of law making.

For those who are interested, I just ran across this page that outlines rules churches are suppose to follow regarding political activity. I thought it was interesting.

Why can't each school decide for themselves?

Becuase the school is run by the state.

Seperation between church and state? Well, okay. But must there be a seperation between church and city or church and school? Why can't each school decide for themselves?

Becuase the school is run by the state. And incientally, state applys to any government in this country - federal, state, local. And government operated school has to abide by the constitution. Not to get ad hominem (sp?) here - but this is really basic American civics.

Secondly, isn't there already a seperation between "church" and state? I figured that with so many religions involved that there was no official "church".

It's not about an official church, its about any religion have any more or less influence on goernment than any other religion. So if we let Religion A have a certain right, we need to let every other religion (even the one's that A doesn't like, or thinks is occult, etc) have the same right. What is often forgotten is that the same applies in reverse - all religion's have protection and free from the government. So the government can't decide to, say, tax your local Baptist church out of existence, and let your local synagogue or mosque get a free ride. Incidentally, the famous "Wall of Separation" quote was in response to a Baptist group writing the president thanking him for supporting the Seperation of Church and State - as they were facing oppression at the hands of thier Congregationalist controled local government.

Also, where is the exact passage that contains "seperation between church and state"?

Well, it all stems from the "Congress shall make no law..." clause in the Constitution about relgions. The actualy phrase was coined in the aforementioned letter by (I am almost sure, but I am tired) Thomas Jefferson. More details about all this can be found at a place like the ACLU or AU.

.I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could --
- Marco Share twitter facebook linkedin

whew... (Score:1) by MoceanWorker ( 232487 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:37AM (#3077327) Homepage I'm lucky, because i just checked today's comic (if there was any) about 5 minutes ago... i'm assuming piro's site is going to be down for a couple of hours. Not to mention, they just had a server relocation which caused them to be down for a week ;-) --


"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins Share twitter facebook linkedin

Enough about why the .coms didn't work (Score:3, Funny) by iamjim ( 313916 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:38AM (#3077331) Have we heard enough about why the .com "era" failed? Enough "dot bomb" and other witty phrases refering to a once disturbingly propserous era. The fact is that people got dumb for a while. Things have worked for a certain way for a long time. I am sick and tired of reading the news about how someone on wall street had a bad weekend and now the nasdaq is down 200 points. Little do we know it, it is a coffee shop across the street of the trading rooms that switched their regular coffee to folgers crystals two years ago - lets see what happens? Share twitter facebook linkedin

• Re:Enough about why the .coms didn't work (Score:2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:41AM (#3077348) Actually, his response, if read, was actually pretty cool, talking about respect being the currency of the net, and other thoughts that were new to me. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Enough about why the .coms didn't work (Score:5, Insightful) by nomadic ( 141991 ) writes: Alter Relationship <nomadicworld@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:04AM (#3077490) Homepage The fact is they're still dumb. They saw that the internet was popular, and their kneejerk reaction was to try to think up a way to capitalize financially on that. They're still doing it.
  
  Analysts come up with figures: x% of internet users will be going wireless by 200y. So they just pump millions of dollars into creating infrastructure, never bothering to look at those figures with any intelligence. How did some guy in a little office downtown come up with these figures? Surveys? Estimations? Listening to wireless company executives' pipe dreams?
  
  Look at interactive TV. For YEARS they've been churning out one failed interactive TV venture after another. They've managed to convince themselves that people want to talk to their TV, and it doesn't matter how many times it fails, they're still lining up to make the next doomed platform.
  
  Not everything can be commoditized, and it's a sad statement on our current culture when the first question that pops into some greedy, inept "entrepreneur" is how much can I make? Piro put it very simply and clearly; just because people like something doesn't mean they're going to pay for it, especially if they used to get it for free (it was a nice change from his usual rants, which usually run along the lines of "this strip has sucked any enjoyment out of my life, and I now live in a constant hell of fatigue and despair. I'm so very, very tired..." Wish the poor guy would realize we don't mind if a strip is a few days late.) Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Enough about why the .coms didn't work (Score:1) by ethereal ( 13958 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:19AM (#3078787) Journal

    (it was a nice change from his usual rants, which usually run along the lines of "this strip has sucked any enjoyment out of my life, and I now live in a constant hell of fatigue and despair. I'm so very, very tired..."

    Think "sad girls in snow", Piro - quick!

    Seriously, I don't understand why he puts up with even 10% of the crap he gets. If I were putting up a free comic for all and sundry, you can bet I wouldn't be taking any criticism from others about my art, let alone about how often I update the site, when the shirts will be available, etc. People need to understand that he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart and artistic integrity, and he needs to understand that he's entirely entitled to tell any complainers to STFU, or at least to completely ignore them.

    And MT isn't the only comic - it seems that most widely-read web comics acquire a halo of people that just bitch to the artist and make them feel bad. I'm in the "silent majority" - I read web comics every day but I usually don't email the author either to complain or to applaud. And it really pisses me off to read that somebody's been giving one of my favorite artists grief for something that they do completely for free anyway. Some people are just not very nice, I guess - I was taught that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything.

    I think I'm done ranting now :)

    --
    

    Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:Enough about why the .coms didn't work (Score:1) by Zurk ( 37028 ) writes: Alter Relationship <[zurktech] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @10:18AM (#3080763) Journal hey..it happens to everyone of us even those writing free software. most simply ignore it and hit delete if its a flame mail. ive been flamed at various times for [1] writing code that was not indented or commented. well...duh...do i look like i care? [2] writing code that crashed someones machine when it explicitly stated on the page : BETA RELEASE: FOR PROGRAMMERS ONLY. WILL CRASH. [3] flamed for the lack of features [4] flamed for having too many features [5] flamed for a sucky interface [6] flamed for having too nice an interface.
      do i care ? nope. i just move on and hit delete. and my projects arent really that popular...i cant imagine what the popular projects get.
      usually anyone posting stuff on the net gets a thick skin after a while. its no big deal.
      Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Enough about why the .coms didn't work (Score:2) by BitwizeGHC ( 145393 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:26AM (#3077604) Homepage A while back I referred to that period in our history as "just the introduction to the Opposites". Funny, nobody linked to the rant on my comic... --
  N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz! Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Enough about why the .coms didn't work (Score:3, Funny) by grammar fascist ( 239789 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @11:22AM (#3081187) Homepage Speaking of "dot bomb," I've got a suggestion for ICANN on a new TLD.
  
  Just imagine. . . newfangledsolutions.bomb. . . pointclick.bomb. . . amazon.bomb. . .
  --
  I got my Linux laptop at System76. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin

Jon? (Score:5, Funny) by EricKrout.com ( 559698 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:38AM (#3077333) Homepage Say the name MegaTokyo and most people, if they recognize it, think 'one of the best manga/comics on the net today. (ignoring the recent 'stick figure dom' days while Piro was moving).' But few people think about the social, economic and philosophic issues the authors' rants can delve into. This morning Piro put up a rather long 'rant' that's really a catching insight into why the dot-com world didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving.

Mr. Katz:

If you can't even post commentaries under your own identity anymore for fear of 200 comments blasting your credibility and cliched statements, I think it's time you pack your bags and leave.

Sincerely,
Slashdot Users, #2 - #570,000
;-) Share twitter facebook linkedin

• Re:Jon? (Score:2, Insightful) by darketernal ( 196596 ) writes: Alter Relationship <joshk.triplehelix@org> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:54AM (#3077433) Homepage Well, as user #196596, count me out.
  
  If you compare every piece of writing that delves into something a troll like you wouldn't understand to Katz - yes, agreed, Katz can get repetitive and annoying AT TIMES - then you should be the one packing your bags, in shame.
  
  Fred is a smart guy and wouldn't rant giant loads of trash on his own page as you so allude him to. Give him a break. He's no industry analyst or Robert X. Cringely. He's just a manga artist that vents his thoughts on his own personal web page - just like thousands if not millions of other normal people around the world who share themselves with each other.
  
  So is the problem that each time something gets slashdotted that it goes under a vastly different scrutiny filter? If you're mad at the story, shouldn't you be more mad at the person who submitted it? It's like submitting a story to someone's livejournal!
  
  I rest my case. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Jon? (Score:1) by darketernal ( 196596 ) writes: Alter Relationship <joshk.triplehelix@org> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:57AM (#3077450) Homepage

    submitting a story about

    Oops. Sorry for any confusion this might have caused
    
    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Jon? (Score:2, Funny) by Mynn ( 209621 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:01AM (#3077471) Just filter him out, only takes a few minutes ... after a while, you stop comparing others to him and suspect it's a "ringer".
    
    That said, I'm quite impressed with MegaTokyo and that Piro and Largo (Fred and ???) have kept it going despite the trials that are life.
    
    *deletes large rant about another web comic strip that is run by someone who does it as their full time job and can't keep up half as well to their stated commitments and decided to add to their burden by producing a subscription sideline* --
    
    Face it, people are stupid, and the internet is the place where they all meet. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:Jon? (Score:2, Informative) by darketernal ( 196596 ) writes: Alter Relationship <joshk.triplehelix@org> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:04AM (#3077493) Homepage Piro = Fred Gallagher
      Largo = Rodney Caston Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Jon? (Score:1) by Cyclops ( 1852 ) writes: Alter Relationship <rms@@@1407...org> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:12AM (#3077539) Homepage Although this may have been intended as a joke, I am an user within #2 - #570,000 and I reject this statement. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Jon? (Score:1) by nusuth ( 520833 ) writes: Alter Relationship <oooo_0000us AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:43AM (#3078083) Homepage So you think even if katz can't post commentaries under his own identity anymore he nevertheless shouldn't pack his bags and leave? --
    

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Jon? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:46AM (#3077706) funny. that is EXACTLY when i glanced up at the author to see who had written this drivel. needless to say i was expecting a big fat katz. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Jon? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:20AM (#3077906) Off-topic? Someone forget to have their morning coffee or didn't receive a sense of humor at birth. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• NFW (Score:2) by cabbey ( 8697 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:48AM (#3078121) Homepage I am NOT Jon Katz. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:YFW (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:07AM (#3078269) Just like there is no spoon... Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:NFW (Score:2) by JordanH ( 75307 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @08:09AM (#3079641) Homepage Journal
    • I am NOT Jon Katz.

    Of course, that's exactly what Jon Katz would say if he were trying to post an Ask Slashdot under a nom de plume, isn't it?

    You'll have to do better than THAT, Jon.

    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:NFW (Score:1) by tonywong ( 96839 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @11:03AM (#3081072) Homepage Heh, this reminds of the Fight Club scene where Jack is trying to convince the lower ranking police officers not to cut off Jack's balls.
      
      Jack: "You're making a big mistake, fellas."
      Officer: "You said you'd say that."
      Jack: "I'm not Tyler Durden!"
      Officer: "You told us you'd say that too."
      Jack: "I am Tyler Durden. Listen to me, I am giving you a direct order: we are aborting this mission, right now."
      Officer: "You said you would definitely say that." Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
      • Re:NFW (Score:1) by cabbey ( 8697 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @11:29AM (#3081220) Homepage hehe, ok... how 'bout this... a userid of 8697 should clearly predate the time when Jon darkened the stoop of /. with his entry. :) Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
        • Re:NFW (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @01:38PM (#3081793) Not at all. You cannot fool the truly paranoid- your manipulations only raise the question: what did you to to the old user 8697 before you stole his id?
          
          After all, if you have access to the lowest levels of slashdot, you have the power to change a simple database entry. Delete a password- change it to slashdot01- you don't even have to mess with the username.
          
          Is the old cabbey still alive, or did you "reassign" him? If so, is he even aware of the fact that his id is being used for such nefarious schemes? or is he just another of the thousands of users who became disillusioned with /. over the years, moving on to other places and topics which don't include Microsoft OR anime porn, therefore leaving himself wide open to account hijacking...
          
          j00 c4n7 f00l u5 j0n, w3 kn0w 411 j00r 53cr3t5... Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
          • Re:NFW (Score:1) by painkillr ( 33398 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:29PM (#3082232) If I had the power to change my user id #, I'd change it to 1337.
            
            Cause you know... i'm lame like that. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
          • Re:NFW (Score:1) by cabbey ( 8697 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:03PM (#3082506) Homepage ROTFL. thank you ac. :) Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin

Conflict of Interest? (Score:0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:39AM (#3077337) Is this story being run because MegaTokyo runs banner ads on Slashdot? I can't think of any other reason why it would be called news. Share twitter facebook linkedin

• Re:Conflict of Interest? (Score:-1) by l33t j03 ( 222209 ) writes: Alter Relationship <l33tj03@hotmail.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:14AM (#3077550) Homepage Journal It sure is. Think back to They Might Be Giants. I just checked out VA's self service banner ad deal and I think I might try to put together an ad for Goat Sex and buy a few page impressions. If they are willing to run a story on how the Goat Sex guy handles all of his traffic, I might be willing to toss a few extra thousand their way. --
  

  Cunning linguists

  Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin

Here's the article (Score:4, Informative) by Talisman ( 39902 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:40AM (#3077344) Homepage I knew it would get /.'d, so here it is:

As you can see, there is no comic today - that's my fault, and involves many factors (the most significant of which is my complete and utter inability to draw tonight. once you go thru 10 sheets of paper its time to face facts and go to plan 'b') So, you get a new comic Thursday and Friday this week instead of Wednesday and Friday. What's a few more hate e-mail this week, i'll live.

I have a tendency to forget things sometimes. Like, for instance, Sweetest Day. Valentines day. Seraphim's Birthday. The fact that you buy gifts for people at Christmas. Things like that.

Even when i do remember these things, the execution of them often has tragic results. I don't send Seraphim flowers typically. Mostly because of one incident where i sent her this amazingly beautiful arrangement that had pollen so toxic that we had to lock the bouquet in the bathroom to keep it from killing her. This florist has subsequently gone out of business.

When it comes to gifts, i'm not big on 'oh, its a holiday, i gotta find something, anything' kind of gift giver. I'd rather come up with something REALLY nice, or really useful. This attitude towards gift giving makes it harder than normal to find things for the people in your life. More often than not, i tend to push off these shopping tasks until it is too late, resulting in the 'pick up anything you can find' method of shopping the day before you need it (i've purchased chirstmas presents on christmas day. Yes, i am that pathetic.)

Anyways, as you might expect, valentines day this year was even worse than usual. Seraphim told me without hesitation that she was more than happy with the botched shirt and candy box gift i attempted to give her days earlier (long story), but i still felt BAD for not having something to give her on valentines day itself. So, i think to myself, i'll send her an e-card! Yea! the ultimate loser geek thing to send to your girl.

For years, i've been sending out Blue Mountain Arts cards to Seraphim, often forgetting that i had already sent her that particular card (bear themed cards are popular between us) but even so, i don't do it THAT regularly. So imagine my surprise when i pulled up Blue Mountain Arts that day and discovered that this once free service was now something you had to pay for.

So, as a loving boyfriend, did i pony up the dough and send her a card? Hell no.

There's an inherent part of human nature that just makes you bristle at having to suddenly pay for something that you didn't have to pay for before. Have a great free service? Sure, people will use it and love it. The business model that says 'give it to them for a while for free so they fall in love with it, then start charging them?' - er, sorry guys. Nice business model, absolutely no understanding of human nature. Since a significant portion of the dot-com economy was based on this model, it should have been no surprise to anyone that the whole thing fell on it's collective ass.

I can totally understand why Blue Mountain Arts switched to a pay for use model. All that traffic has to use a LOT of bandwidth, and with companies no longer hosing advertising dollars around without any real worries as to whether it was effective or not, there's gotta be some way to pay the bills. So, the idea that you get a significant chunk of your users to pay a small fee makes a lot of sense - after all, you get a LOT of people to pay a LITTLE money, you're problems are over, right? Sadly, i don't think this is really the case. It goes against the very nature of the web.

Lets face it. One of the reasons people LIKE the internet is that it gives people access to a LOT of information and entertainment for very low cost. It's not free - most of us pay a reasonable amount of money for bandwidth and internet connections - but on the net we pretty much like to think that once we've paid admission, we're free to roam and do whatever we like. Transferring information on the net is CHEAP. its so cheap, you can pretty much give it away for free. If people like it, they keep coming back for more. The commodity of the internet isn't money, it's access. It's connections. You're wealth in net terms is defined by 'what you have access to'.

We all have friends or people we know who can find just about anything, legal or otherwise, on the net with little or no effort. MP3 files are a good model to look at for this. A lot of great music is pretty much free for the asking at sites like mp3.com but most of the files traded around aren't really 'legal'. Are people really willing to pay for Mp3 files? Not really, because we already have it in our minds that mp3s are a 'free' resource. We don't feel we get any value buy paying for it. If we DO slap down money for music, we want the tangible piece of circular plastic where we can say 'this is mine'.

Then there is this rather interesting phenomenon that often occurs. Once you have the CD, you burn MP3 files and make them available for others over the net. Why would someone do that? Because it adds value to their purchase. We get not only the music, but the added benefit of having added something to the collective pool of information. You've added access to this music, you've increased your own online 'wealth'.

One of the reasons i started Fredart years and years ago was that i found that i wanted to provide my own thing to the 'pool'. For anime fans, especially back then, there was this whole world of japanese anime and manga where entire series lay waiting to be discovered. If nothing else, you could take all the information available on them, collect it together into a webpage, and make it more easily available for people seeking info on a particular series. At the time, I remember noticing that there were no web pages on 3x3 Eyes, so i decided that i would make one. Pai's Page was, really, the first web page on the series, and i did a fairly good job on it. Once making it, however, i had little interest in working any further on it. There was something that just wasn't satisfying about just re-arranging what was, in effect, someone elses work.

Around that time i started to explore japanese websites that revolved around anime and manga. In japan, it was considered bad form to just scan and post copywrited images, so japanese fans found that the best way they could express their loyalty and love for a series and its characters was to do their own fan works. I really liked this model, and Fredart was direct derivative of those style of pages. I wanted to provide NEW material to the web, not just stuff i had found surfing around, or even stuff scanned out of magazines. I was adding something original to the pool, not just reorganizing and recollecting.

I think that one of the things you get when you add to the pool, so to speak, is a certain amount of respect. you don't just take, you give as well. The net lends itself well to new ways that people can provide things to the collective pool. You don't need to be sponsored and paid for by some big media company to get your work in front of millions of people. The old model was that you had to be able to convince a bunch of people with lots of money that you were worth promoting before you even had a chance to see if people would respond to your work on a grand scale. This lead, for the longest time, to the sad state where only a small number of people decided what the public was going to see. Also, since these same people convinced all of us over the years that ONLY people that they felt were good enough to promote were worthy of entertaining us, that we should not waste our time entertaining ourselves - only paid for entertainment was worthy entertainment. Worked great till the net came along.

The net shatters some of the basic structures that people have used for ages to control the dissemination of information. Easy to send, easy to duplicate. The Dot com economy was doomed from the onset because it was formed on the basis of the idea that by just getting out there and capturing the attention of a big chunk of the internet population, the money would just start flowing in. Heh. Some hard lessons have been learned. It doesn't really work that way.

If you think about it, the real currency on the net isn't money. It's respect. Either as an individual or as an entity you gain respect by providing either new material to the net pool, or you provide effective and useful ways for people to access information that is already out there. A lot of big sites that do this started out small (even yahoo. i remember when it was just a link list over at Stanford run by two guys). Of course, respect doesn't pay the bills, so there always comes a time where you have to start looking at how to not only survive, but maybe even prosper a little on all this.

It's in this armature where the real economic viability of the net rests. There is no direct relationship between turning respect into dollars, but that doesn't mean to say that there isn't some relationship between the two. In my opinion, i feel there is a trade off - when you start charging for what you provide, you loose some of the respect you've earned, because now people have traded cash for it. The nature of the relationship has changed. When you move to a pay-for-services model, it completely changes the nature of the interaction between a site and its users. It's especially bad if people suddenly have to pay for something that was, for the longest time, free. Honestly, i think that it's human nature to almost feel 'betrayed' - which, of course, leads to a real loss of hit points in the respect column. ^_^;; The paradox here is that once people loose respect for a site, won't they be less willing to pay for it?

Odd train of thought, huh? I've had to think a lot about stuff like this lately. Running a site like MT is expensive - we've crested 10 million page views this month already, but at the same time the site is almost no different than it was when it was a non-working html template that i had pieced together over a weekend a year and a half ago. Largo and I really do, i think, have a little bit of an understanding of what makes MT what it is - tho i do have to tell you the mind boggles at why so MANY people seem to find the site worth visiting - and with that understanding comes a responsibility to make sure that whatever we do to help keep the site alive NEVER messes with those things. To me, the respect people have shown me over the years for all the hard work and dedication we've put into the site is something i never want to trade in on - because its worth more than any amount of money to me.

I suppose that its the post-dotcom economy sites that now bear the burden of figuring out how to survive in the wired. How DO you survive, pay hosting bills, make enough money to support yourself and others who help run the site? Traditional business model ways of looking at things has already proven that we all know less than we thought we did. Largo and i do it the hard way - we both work full time jobs AND do this silly site. This is not, of course, ideal, and speaks more about our lack of useful brain cells than any kind of success as a website.

I think that an understanding of human nature is almost more important here on the web than in any other business environment. Why? because unlike in the real world we are used to, we've been trained to an 'us and them' mentality in regards to our entertainment and things that we purchase in stores - we are consumers, they are providers. On the net, its different. We are all one in the same - fredart.com was just as accessible as ibm.com. We all can make websites. We all KNOW we have the ability to reach millions of people. Many sites, even Megatokyo itself, has proven that individuals can do this. You dont need to be a big corporation. We all have the same basic presence on the net - its how we use it that makes us who we are here.

Oh, and Seraphim's reaction to me being so cheap that i wasn't willing to pay for a subscription to Blue Mountain Arts to send her a valentines day e-card? Her answer was, if you think about it, not surprising: "The hell with that. you're little ASCII heart was so cute."

It's not the money you spend, its the thought that goes into it. You can't buy respect, you can only earn it.

--

"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel Share twitter facebook linkedin

• Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:1) by zoomin ( 168286 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:55AM (#3077435)
  

  We get not only the music, but the added benefit of having added something to the collective pool of information. You've added access to this music, you've increased your own online 'wealth'.

  Yes, increased your online wealth by stealing from the artist.
  
  Don't you get your hand cut off for theft in Japan?
  
  Strange words to be coming from an artist...? Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:2, Interesting) by redgren ( 183312 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:05AM (#3077498) Journal Yes, increased your online wealth by stealing from the artist ... Strange words to be coming from an artist...?
    
    He's not advocating that you do this. He is stating it as a fact-of-life on the internet. Which it is. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:3, Interesting) by GTRacer ( 234395 ) writes: Alter Relationship <(gtracer308) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:05AM (#3077502) Homepage Journal Yes, increased your online wealth by stealing from the artist.?

    I think he's pointing out something blindingly obvious about the human condition - I bet 90% of the people trading MP3s don't give it a second thought. They probably feel all l337. Doesn't make it right, but it explains the motivations of 90% of music-sharers.

    Those motivations are what these companies and industry groups (Sony, RIAA, MPAA, TWAT...) need to understand.

    I don't agree with smashing IP law and having a free-for-all, but the obvious non-understaning of what makes netizens tick is what makes me so angry when these stupid IP lawsuits get thrown about like so much Cheez-Wiz.

    Face it, content creators, it's a new paradigm out there. Adjust, destroy, or be destroyed...

    GTRacer
    - What /. needs is a "Nani Naze /." page...
    

    --
    Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice! Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:2) by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:36AM (#3078464) > What /. needs is a "Nani Naze /." page...
      
      I can see it now--Cmdr. Taco gets the little boy overalls and CowboyNeal gets the rabbit suit...
      
      Chris Mattern Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:1) by mazachan ( 126721 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @07:14AM (#3079216) Actually not at all.. I would say I download quite a bit of mp3s. However, I do not do it because I feel "l33t". There are quite a few people like me. I listen to music from overseas (I live in the US), particularly Hong Kong. However, since Chicago does not have as big a Chinese population as say, San Francisco or Toronto, people that sell cds here don't do too well. You either pay 25-30 dollars for a cd. If they had cds here for regular price, I would buy it. Heck, whenever I go back to Hong Kong I will buy regular cds (NOT Pirated mind you). I think that mp3 sharing is a god send for people like us. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
      • Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:1) by lunatik17 ( 91135 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:07PM (#3082160) Homepage And I thought I was one of the only ones who felt this way. This is actually the biggest reason why I miss Napster. I listen to a lot of Japanese music and when I heard a really cool song I wanted to download it, because theres no way I'll find it sold locally and getting it shipped from overseas is iffy. --
        

        Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?

        Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:4, Insightful) by Psmylie ( 169236 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:06AM (#3077507) Homepage Note the quotation marks around "wealth". He was speaking hypothetically. This was more of a philosophical rant then anything else. In no way do I see Piro endorsing any kind of theft in this statement. --
    

    psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Increase your wealth through piracy (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @11:10AM (#3081126) Insisting on calling piracy theft is just as stupid as insisting on it being called copyright infringement. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: increase your wealth through theft...? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Sunday March 03, 2002 @04:18AM (#3101297) Musicians should make their money from concerts not records. That's what was feeding them before recordings were ever invented. They just used records as a way to go from a profession to an industry. If it costs 33 cents retail for a blank CD, why does the "industry" charge upwards of $15-20? Because people will buy it. Only an idiot would drop the price if people are willing to pay for it. But now we are not. We can get it for 33 cents. Do we feel bad? No. Why? Because we have to sit there and hear musicians who have more money than we ever will bitch about how they, as artists, are being screwed then watch them drive off in a car that we will never afford. We are sick of it and have found a way around it. It is a decaying industry, where all that matters is money. If you want to see how bad it really is check this out: http://www.blistering.com/news/newsdet.php3?ID=258 3 People are fed up and have been given an alternative. The only thing that can't be copied and digitalized is the live performance. Of course, the music industry will argue with me and say that I am wrong but the fact is that as soon as a song gets played on a radio, it's free for the taking and I do not see how the industry is going to stop it. The only way is to stop recording music, but that would kill the industry. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Here's the article (Score:-1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:10AM (#3077526) it hasn't been slashdotted yet, whore. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• hey!... (Score:1) by simpl3x ( 238301 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:23AM (#3077589) i thought i was the first to do an ascii heart!!! Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Here's the article (Score:2, Insightful) by Grmdzo ( 236145 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:39AM (#3077663)

  I think that an understanding of human nature is almost more important here on the web than in any other business environment. Why? because unlike in the real world we are used to, we've been trained to an 'us and them' mentality in regards to our entertainment and things that we purchase in stores - we are consumers, they are providers. On the net, its different. We are all one in the same - fredart.com was just as accessible as ibm.com. We all can make websites. We all KNOW we have the ability to reach millions of people. Many sites, even Megatokyo itself, has proven that individuals can do this. You dont need to be a big corporation. We all have the same basic presence on the net - its how we use it that makes us who we are here.

  I found this gentle rant had a well considered analysis of how some people perceive the web. While some parts of the web enhance and complement my traditional information needs, such as dictionary lookups, news, product information, the volume and diversity of the rest of the web helps me to "see further" (to paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton). I can start by building on the knowledge and experience of others, rather than repeating their trials and experiments.

  Piro discusses adding something very much like a bait-and-switch scheme to the Field of Dreams business model. "If you build it, they will come". I think this strategy works well for making information available, but does not work well for making money from those visitors, unless they have come visiting intending to spend money.

  Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Here's the article (Score:1) by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:58AM (#3077778) Homepage Journal What policy on Slashdot says that anyone who happens to copy/paste the original article (and violate copyright along the way) automatically gets modded up to 5? I would think that it should be modded down for such an action. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Here's the article (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:11AM (#3077860) Poor Megatokyo... they're already short on cash, and I can't imagine how much that link is going to cost them. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Here's the article (Score:2) by ergo98 ( 9391 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:35AM (#3078014) Homepage Journal

    9 times out of 10 the person posting a karma whore verbatim of an article gets modded into oblivion, but every now and then when the host server is actually having problems (as it is right now), people do appreciate being able to read what the article is about, and they mod it up.

    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:Here's the article (Score:1) by yintercept ( 517362 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:52AM (#3078152) Homepage Journal I was thinking the mod up was because of the ironic twist of the article. One of the themes of the rants was that you increased your self worth by displaying someone elses work and adding to the collective pool...so cutting and pasting the article into the /. pool should earn a big mod up...wish I had thought of it. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
      • Re:Here's the article (Score:2) by cymen ( 8178 ) writes: Alter Relationship <cymenvig@nospaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:00AM (#3078641) Homepage Subthreads like these are where the +/- 0 Meta-Comment would come in handy! Anyone else sick of reading Meta-Comments? I don't have a problem with them but it navel gazing gets old after a year or two. Being able to skip such threads would be awesome.
        
        Of course moderation seems to be hard enough as it is so maybe I shouldn't advocate a change.
        
        My /. Meta-Comment for the day (opinions on whether it should be metacomment, Metacomment, MetaComment, Meta-Comment, meta-comment, welcomed)!
        
        Doh... Just realized what people consider Meta-Comments will be ultra-subjective. Oh well... Thought that counts and all that I guess. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:Here's the article (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:55AM (#3078600) The host server is not having problems. I just saw the article with no lag at all.
      Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
      • Re:Here's the article (Score:1) by ergo98 ( 9391 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @07:46AM (#3079433) Homepage Journal

        You're posting that almost two hours after the article was posted, when the Slashdot effect has subsided greatly. When the article was originally posted, I couldn't connect for numerous tries. Perhaps the mirrors should have a timeout on them.

        Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Here's the article (Score:1) by Kallahar ( 227430 ) writes: Alter Relationship <kallahar@quickwired.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:06AM (#3078265) Homepage You must not know megatokyo, they can handle a slashdotting standing on their head!
  
  But good thought, I hate to miss an article when a site gets overloaded...
  
  Travis
  Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Here's the article (Score:1) by thanq ( 321486 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:20AM (#3078794)

  (i've purchased chirstmas presents on christmas day. Yes, i am that pathetic.)

  I think a lot of people does that. Beside that, no one will know unless you tell them you got it on xmas day, so where's the problem? :)

  Now, have you ever ordered a xmas present on xmas day over the Internet? That's pathetic.

  Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• The same thing said differently (Score:1) by ragmana ( 562405 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @08:25PM (#3082956) I think a lot of posts here are missing the point of the rant. Perhaps my perception is skewed by having read Piro's previous rants about covering the site's costs; I've already got the background story to understand what he means. Let me both clarify and expand, if I may.
  
  We buy products because we like them, or we at least think we do. But, when we dislike the seller, we tend to project that dislike onto the product as well. Because we can financially hurt the seller through the product and capital used to sell it, it becomes the seller to us, in a way. By boycotting or destroying stores/merchandise we strike out at the seller by proxy. Animal rights activists douse furs in red paint, some people use Linux/AMD machines because they percieve a Wintel monopoly, etc... There can come a point where the product itself ceases to matter so much as who is selling it.
  
  This, I think Piro argues, and I would as well, relates to what happened to many web sites that switched from free site to paysite. Especially those sites that did so unexpectedly or on short order. People, rightly or wrongly, expected something that was free to continue to be so. If it suddenly comes at a price, with no added value for that price, people feel that something they once had was taken from them. It's not a matter of business on the internet in particular, or even of people being cheapskates. It's a matter of human psychology.
  
  Now, if I think someone took something from me, I'm going to dislike them. And if I project that dislike onto the product they sell, I'm less likely to buy it. If there are a lot of people like me, the product fails to sell and the seller goes under. QED.
  
  That said, the "swag model" a'la MT dodges this particular problem. They charge to cover their costs, but rather than taking something away they add value through sweet spinoff merchandise. The original free content reamins free, so long as the swag sells. (Please sell, swag. Sell like mad.) Penny Arcade is doing something similar with "Club PA" where donators get something extra. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/) These apporaches avoid the psychological pitfalls. In fact, their rants on the topic (in both PA and MT) may even play on psychology by humanizing the authors and engendering favorable feelings (which might also transfer onto the product).
  
  And if the MT swag and book does not sell well enough and the site dies, I will sit in a snowbank and cry. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin

re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:5, Insightful) by Bill the Cat ( 19523 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:42AM (#3077360) I think people used that arguement when cable TV was in its infancy.

Offer people a good product, at the price the market is willing to bear, and they will buy it. Share twitter facebook linkedin

• Obviousness (Score:3, Insightful) by OblongPlatypus ( 233746 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:22AM (#3077582) "Offer people a good product, at the price the market is willing to bear, and they will buy it."
  
  Um... well, obviously. The question here is more about whether the market is willing to bear any viable price at all. --
  -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide -- Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Obviousness (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:33AM (#3078445) Did you mod this up with your second account? You should have chosen a more appropriate moderation than 'Insightful.' See you in meta-moderation! Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:5, Insightful) by Shotgun ( 30919 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:28AM (#3077612) I think people used that arguement when cable TV was in its infancy.
  
  Ummm..No. The draw for cable TV in its infancy was watching movies without commercials (HBO), and get more than the 3 broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS). Cable TV offered value above and beyond broadcast TV that I lusted for but never attained as a child. (Now that I'm grown, I don't sit still long enough to watch TV 8*)
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:23AM (#3077922) Dude,
    
    cable TV was successful LONG before HBO, Cinimax, and Showtime.
    
    Cable TV worked because it delivered a large number of static free TV channels. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:2) by Bill the Cat ( 19523 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:01AM (#3078234) So let's see the website operators, portals, etc., start coming up with services offer value above and beyond the free Internet, just like HBO, MTV, and other pioneering cable channels. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:2) by curunir ( 98273 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @07:27AM (#3079295) Homepage Journal The problem with the analogy to cable was that there really was never any competition between providers in the cable tv space. People were presented with the option to either get cable or not.
      
      The internet is much more granular. If websites start coming up with a "value add" subscription service, people will be forced to choose which subscription services to subscribe to. The problem here is that people hate being nickeled and dimed. If there was an option where people could pay a blanket subscription fee and have access to a whole family of website's "value add" sections, they might choose it. But for an individual website to start charging, is going to be a difficult proposition.
      
      Unfortunately, there are already content providers doing this type of umbrella service. So anyone who tries to setup this kind of website network will have to compete with the AOL's and MSN's of the world...not exactly lightweight competitors. --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:2) by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:42AM (#3078512) >> I think people used that arguement when cable TV was in its infancy.
    
    > Ummm..No. The draw for cable TV in its infancy was watching movies without commercials (HBO), and get more than the 3 broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS). Cable TV offered value above and beyond broadcast TV that I lusted for but never attained as a child. (Now that I'm grown, I don't sit still long enough to watch TV 8*)
    
    And note that Pay TV was never given away (except as part of a clearly marked promotionals). That's Piro's main point: giving it away to build up an audience doesn't work because you get massive backlash when you try to introduce mandatory payment, expecially if you didn't give people signing up for free any warning that they might have to pay to keep getting it later on.
    
    Chris Mattern Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:1) by fferreres ( 525414 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:52AM (#3079054) What makes you think paid sites will not offer better and greater stuff that you value, so that the price is ok? I think people will pay what they value, if it sells for a pair price AND (BIG AND) you can't pirate it. People like pirating, they don't give a damn about company A or B (in general). They know they aren't the ones making the world so unfair so "fix the world first, then judge me". It's my impression, i in no way would endorse piracy. In fact, i think piracy does not always harm company A but in fact may help it kill company B (ex: if MS Office couldn't be pirated, it would have been used less, and some other companies would have had an income). --
    unfinished: (adj.) Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:2) by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) writes: Alter Relationship <scott@alfter.us> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @07:11AM (#3079193) Homepage Journal

    I think people used that arguement when cable TV was in its infancy.

    Ummm..No. The draw for cable TV in its infancy was watching movies without commercials (HBO), and get more than the 3 broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS).

    Considering that cable's been around longer than HBO and such, I don't think that was the motivation behind setting up the first cable systems. I thought it was more about being able to supply a better signal than you would be able to get yourself...the cable company would set up several antennas in a central location, each aimed at a different transmitting tower, and put the received signals out on its own network. It saved you the fuss of making sure your antenna was pointed in the right direction and could sometimes snag extra channels that you couldn't reliably pull in on your own. (The "CA" in "CATV" means "community antenna," not "cable.") It also made subscription-based TV possible, but that didn't happen until later.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:1) by renderhead ( 206057 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Saturday March 02, 2002 @07:23AM (#3098476) Continuing down this train of thought, I'd say that paying for cable TV is more comparable to paying for broadband internet access. Sure, you can use your rabbit-ears antenna if you want and not pay a dime, but you're only getting a few channels at best. Similarly, you could (until recently) get NetZero or some similar free web access at no charge, but you were limited to 56k connections, shakey connections, and ad windows.
      
      

      It's when you start charging for specific content that the analogy breaks down. Only a handful of "premium" television channels charge for access specifically to their own content. They have the advantage of being the only options offered by your local cable provider. However, as Piro reminded us, all websites are equally accessible. There is no HBO or Showtime of the web, by which I mean sites that provide content that is in demand but unavailable anywhere else to the extent that people would happily start paying even though they are used to getting it free.
      
      

      The only business model that's been successful in this regard has been porn. Why? Because the web is the safest, most anonymous way to access it. With normal movies or magazines, nobody's embarrassed to buy them from the store, so the Web is competing with traditional media for customers. With porn, anybody can access XXX content from the privacy of their own home, and they are often willing to pay $20-$30 a month for that luxury. Until the web can provide content across the board that is of comparable quality AND easier to access than traditional media, they won't find as many paying customers as they dream of having.

      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

      Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • HBO? The Z channel! (Score:1) by aquarian ( 134728 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @09:17AM (#3080232) The original attraction of cable was to be able to watch near-first-run and "R" rated movies at home, at all! This was back in the 70s, before VCRs! The first cable movie channel I'm aware of was the "Z" channel, around '75 or '76. It was a pretty big deal to sneak over to someone's house when their parents weren't home, to watch an "R" rated movie like "Rocky." Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:1) by geekoid ( 135745 ) writes: Alter Relationship <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @12:09PM (#3081440) Homepage Journal I'll tell why cable took off, porn.
    When ON tv came out I believe the first cable company, it had a box that sat on your tv, if you wanted to watch the movie the where playing, you turned the big knob to ON tv.
    I was about 13 when we got this, the first time I turned it on and watched the pretty lady wrap her lips around some guys unit, I was hooked.
    Then cable channels started arriving, the big selling point NO censorship.That change pretty quickly, but for a while is was a boys wet dream, literally...
    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:2) by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:09PM (#3082348) Homepage "The draw for cable TV in its infancy was watching movies without commercials (HBO), and get more than the 3 broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS). Cable TV offered value above and beyond broadcast TV that I lusted for but never attained as a child. (Now that I'm grown, I don't sit still long enough to watch TV 8*)"
    
    Actually the draw for cable TV in its infancy was to simply get broadcast television to areas that couldn't get television.
    
    This happened in the 50's, not the 70's as you seem to imply.
    
    I should know, I grew up in a town in Pennsylvania that was one of the first to get cable TV.
    
    There were 3 (count 'em) channels, and at some point I remember "educational TV" being put on. I think it was a forerunner of PBS. Later, they expanded the dial to fill up VHF positions 2-13. And it was that way until the mid-80's.
    
    Its funny to think the "scrambling" employed by cable companies for HBO when it came out was to pick a frequency in between 6 & 7 where most tuners couldn't tune (remember, this was the analog days). Depending on your TV, you could simply fine tune channel 6 until you got HBO, or there were home-brew hacks to your tuner that people swore would work. I don't know, my parents would never let me experiment with the color TV.
    
    The point is that cable TV was expensive in those days ($10/month. Holy cow...this was when a brand new car was $3,000), but if you wanted TV you paid for cable.
    
    But believe me, the commercials were there. --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:1) by Vajsvarana ( 238818 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:56AM (#3077765) > I think people used that arguement when cable TV was in its infancy.
  
  And that's exactly why cable TV failed in 95% of the countries :))) Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:3, Interesting) by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:53AM (#3078164) Homepage
  • Offer people a good product, at the price the market is willing to bear, and they will buy it.

  Unless there's an equally slick and well packaged alternative available for free exactly one click away. Been on the 'net recently? It simply doesn't map well to any other model or analogy: there's a very low cost of entry for suppliers, no expectation of payment by consumers, and it's a transparent market, so you can't obfuscate your charges like long distance phone companies do. ;-)

  The only analogy that springs to mind is a huge and ongoing flea market, in one massive field, with free admission for everyone. Unless you are the only seller with shinola, and everyone else is selling shit, you can't charge, because your customers will just wander off. Hell, even if you are the only one selling genuine shinola, there's so many other stalls giving away "shinola-like" products that your customers might just wander off and never find their way back.

  What's my solution? Give up trying to make money on the 'net, stupid. But hell, as long as greedy and ignorant venture capitalists are prepared to throw good money after bad in wonderful follies like Slashdot, I'm happy to go to their stall. When it bows to the inevitable and shuts up shop (or starts charging, which is effectively the same), there will still be plenty of other equally daft vendors opening up free stalls. And if there isn't, well, I was never paying anything, so I haven't lost anything, other than my investment in whoring karma.

  People who say that we should expect to pay to support sites like Slashdot are rather missing the point. The whole model of commercial sites is doomed, unless they're genuine retaillers like Amazon. High quality non-retail sites are simply fuckedcompanies from the get-go, and the sooner we all admit that (quietely), the sooner we can get back to lapping up the benefits of spending money from rich, greedy, ignorant venture capitalists, and enjoying the lovely short lived ride. It's going to be over soon, and you and I (if we're being honest) just aren't going to pay for another go on it.

  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:1) by coldtone ( 98189 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:44AM (#3078979) What's my solution? Give up trying to make money on the 'net, stupid.
    Another solution is to only offer stuff for free that will always be free, and then introduce new pay side of the site with additional features. I agree that moving a free service to a pay service is suicide. But if you only add new pay services, well that's different.
    
    A good example of this approach is site. The originally offered a basic site with the show streamed over the net. (But only at the same time it was on the radio.) The expanded site that costs bucks gives you access to an archive of shows and a ton of special features. They didn't lose anyone when they launched the expanded site because they didn't remove a thing from the original.
    
    Note to slashdot. If you need to start charging then only charge for some new cool features that people want. Just getting the site without ad's wont cut it. I wouldn't pay for it.
    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:1) by bla ( 96124 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:09AM (#3078276) the difference between cable tv and the internet as i see it is that when you buy cable, you buy the access to the various channels. once you've paid for that, there's just your monthly cable bill to said cable company. on the 'net, not only are we paying for access, we're also independently paying for content. it would be like paying CNN and MTV cheques each month on top of the basic cable service. no one's ever sat down and figured out what's "basic service" for the net (not to mention there's a hell of a lot more content on there than there are premium cable channels).

  megatokyo supports itself on ad revenue and merchandise. penny arcade adds donations and gives people who subscribe a little gift (or they used to...i think they've changed recently). but there's never been one day where you just suddenly connected and surprise! the site's pay, as what happened to piro to spark his rant in the first place. how many people do you know who kept their premium cable channels after the first 3 months free were over? i don't think i know anyone who did. and at least with that, you knew when the free period would run out.

  i think piro's right. respect is the currency of the net, and when you start charging for something that before you just traded for fun or whatever, people lose their respect for you. it's the little extras that you provide once people fork over however much cash they can that keeps the respect (for instance, penny arcade never demanded a minimum donation). piro's point was that people will put stuff on the net in return for having gotten stuff themselves. we'll either add cash, or we'll increase the content out there. but presumptuously demanding payments for content won't work.

  Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:1) by lunatik17 ( 91135 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:43PM (#3082079) Homepage on the 'net, not only are we paying for access, we're also independently paying for content. it would be like paying CNN and MTV cheques each month on top of the basic cable service.

    ...you mean like Premium cable channels like HBO and Showtime?

    --
    

    Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?

    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• The difference is, cable's packaged. (Score:1) by schmaltz ( 70977 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:42AM (#3078966) I think people used that arguement when cable TV was in its infancy.
  
  The cable company charges you a fixed price, which goes to pay not just the cable network and infrastructure necessary to deliver NTSC to the back of your tube. Part of that money also gets kicked over to the program producers (in the form of syndication fees, showing rentals, etc.), plus channels and producers sell commercials based on cable viewership.
  
  This model doesn't translate to the internet's current model. To adjust it to fit means your ISP would charge you more, and pay fractional pennies per hit to the websites you view.
  
  Darwinism would soon take over, imo. Sites that are interesting, compelling, or have just sheer gravity due to mass interest would receive dollars in exchange for serving their content to visitors.
  
  This has been proposed many times, but I doubt it's going to happen, because there's enough freebie/donated/volunteer websites filling many peoples' needs. That, or sites that survive otherwise are supported by their
  product or service.
  --
  Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy? Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:The difference is, cable's packaged. (Score:1) by fferreres ( 525414 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:58AM (#3079089) Don't you have premium channels there? --
    unfinished: (adj.) Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re: consumers won't pay for what was free (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @06:57AM (#3079087) Cable TV is much like Access to the Net.
  Not the content, stupid :)
  Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin

Effect in the Long Term (Score:5, Interesting) by yndrd ( 529288 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:42AM (#3077361) Homepage Interesting commentary in the rant about the concept of people not wanting to suddenly pay for something historically free. I wonder what will happen once the current generation of users accustomed to free content is replaced by a newer one more accustomed to fees? Will there be a more lucrative dot-com explosion then?

People will balk initially at paying for content, but I think they'll gradually get used to it. I remember being pissed that I'm paying for cable AND for the commercials they're sending me, but now I've just come to accept it.

Mind you, I think this is a lousy thing to happen, but I can't think of a way to thwart it. Our only hope are the sites spewing out free content to contrast with the ones providing it for cost. As long as these places go on, it will be hard to corner people into paying. Share twitter facebook linkedin

• Re:Effect in the Long Term (Score:2) by Bartmoss ( 16109 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:12AM (#3077543) Homepage Journal The difference is that the barrier of entry for web content is MUCH lower than for providing cable TV. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Communism (Score:1) by inKubus ( 199753 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:20AM (#3077575) Homepage Journal The 'net really is about communism. In trade for taking, everyone has to throw something in for it to be as good as it can possibly be. Of course, in an ideal world, everyone would have equal access to connection and other hardware resources also, so here again it is the person with the most money that wins. But, as the author pointed out, a good part of having a successful or popular website is respect. Respect translates into word of mouth advertising, which is the only way that a site can become more popular. Anyway, then he went into some details about translating respect into the resources needed to continue running a site. Not as a business, but as a Web Artist. (and really, if you aren't offering some SERVICE, you are a web artist).
  
  I like an idea like this:
  1. Everyone pays a tax on their internet connection. Say 1% of the total cost per year. On a 20/month line, it would be .20 per month in tax.
  
  2. All the tax money goes into a large pool. Think National Endowment for the Arts.
  
  3. Here's the tricky part, distributing the money to those who deserve it most (because they are respected): First, although businesses and for profit sites have to pay the tax, they don't get to decide where any of the money goes. After all, they are already making money. Second, anyone who is not contributing in some way to the community can't decide either. This is a little harsh, but necessary.
  
  So, follow me here, EVERYONE/THING on the internet pays the tax, but only people who contribute not-for-profit can get money back. Ok, now into distribution: The total amount of money is evenly divided by the number of sites. Each site gets to handle their share. Now, the people who run the sites have to "donate" their share to other sites. This can be done using a point system (like Slashdot). Any unused money goes back into the coffer and is evenly distributed for real to all the sites. Those sites which got more donations recieve that much more of the money.
  
  Of course, there are issues with this like slackers putting up one line and claiming to be a contributer, but those can be cleared up with intelligent webcrawlers and the like. It must be as unbureaucratic and as community oriented as possible. The organizing body would have to run some sort of website ranking sites by how many donations they have and in categories, and then at the end of the month, they all get rewarded for their command of respect by getting real money which can help cover their costs. It's really fair, encourages participation in the community, and separates commercial enterprise from the community as much as possible. It might even be cool to have a separate TLD for those sites (.nonprofit or .art or something). I'm sure there's other things you could do also, but this is just another one of my stream of consciousness posts so I won't start down that path now. --
  Cool! Amazing Toys. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Communism (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @01:53PM (#3081871) And it is failing for the same reason communism failed in the real world. Very few people are able to throw anything useful in, and everyone wants to take something out, making it less than worthwhile for the people who produce. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Communism (Score:1) by lifftchi ( 195622 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @07:04PM (#3082814) Homepage Journal it's an interesting idea. neat in theory. but there are a lot of practical aspects that make it untenable.
    
    start with language barriers. how is it possible to divide money equally when certain content is available only to certain people? should the pool be divided by language?
    
    who administers? international co-operation isn't run on anything remotely 'unbureaucratic' or 'community oriented.'
    
    there are other problems tied up with collection, private enterprise, bookkeeping, and so on, but the end result as i see it is that this is play-talk, and it doesn't matter that we might like it more than reality.
    
    this system as you propose it seems like the bbc or cbc, which operate based partially on equipmnet taxes, but that only works because there's no need to handle the messy dividing-up aspects. were it not for the fact that web is fundamentally peer-to-peer, there might be an elegant solution.
    
    by the way, this is hardly the first time piro's said something insightful. he's even used these themes of respect and implicit contract before. he's also written excellent, well-reasoned rants about fan culture, social interaction, and many other subjects. most otaku i know are extremely proud of him. . . he says what we would all like to, but louder and much, much clearer. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Communism (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Sunday March 03, 2002 @12:08PM (#3103114) I'm not sure if you noticed, but communism didn't work. It looks good on paper, but people aren't so into doing things for the common good. The reason free-market economies have flourished is that they rely on people to look out for #1, which causes competition. If you're going to be idealistic about the situation, why not consider an ideal free-market internet where consumers will flock to whoever provides the best and cheapest services? One where websites/businesses gain the respect of users by keeping services available for free? One where prices don't continually rise due to corporate cooperation (or rather, ganging-up)? Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Effect in the Long Term (Score:1) by ischemic ( 527226 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:20AM (#3077577)

  I think most people are willing to pay a reasonable amount for content (after all, it costs $$ to create good content and provide the bandwith to make it available). Further, $$ provides an additional motivation to provide high quality content.

  The problem as I see it is that it is too much of an irritation to actually pay for anything while you are surfing content. Can you imagine anyone plugging in a nickel every time they flipped stations on a TV? Or paying for unlimited use of a single station? I am unwilling to pay for any content on the web, since there is always lots out there that is 'close enough' in quality to what I need so there's no need to pay for the best stuff. The adequate is the enemy of the excellent here.

  If these costs could be incorporated into your ISP bill at a reasonable rate (maybe $1-$5 per month based on usage) and distributed based on your usage, then sites you enjoy could be rewarded for generating content and providing the bandwidth for it.

  Of course, such a scheme would need to be designed carefully to avoid privacy concerns, but I think this could be done by aggregating to the ISP level. It would be completely unacceptable to have site usage tracked back to individuals.

  This model moves the net closer to its real economic model, which is really based on content, not respect as suggested. I respect Linus quite a bit, but I don't tend to consume much content generated by him (not counting kernel sources). On the other hand, I consume quite a bit of content from Slashdot, although my respect level is generally not as high.

  Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Effect in the Long Term (Score:2) by Steveftoth ( 78419 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:56AM (#3078198) Homepage Why not use the money from the tax to instead build a server farm where people can then request space on for non-profit needs. Then you can host these 'non-profit' sites there. Instead of giving money to the artist to pay their fees, you just host it for them. This way it also makes it easier to determine which sites are popular and more deserving of support. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Effect in the Long Term (Score:2) by Matey-O ( 518004 ) writes: Alter Relationship <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:22AM (#3077584) Homepage Journal Agreed. I came up short once when somebody asked my what my Telco budget was. Not my Office budget, my personal telco budget.
  
  I stopped counting when it crested $200 a month. (Analog line, ISDN, Cellphone, Longdistance at the time)
  
  How many things do we pay for that we'd be hard pressed to give up if finances required it? would you give up your Tivo? Your Cable?
  
  Your Slashdot?
  
  --
  "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus." Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Problem with paying for content (Score:4, Interesting) by hendridm ( 302246 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:40AM (#3077669) Homepage I think many of us would be willing to pay a certain amount for services we perceive as useful. However, I doubt the average user can afford to pay, say, $6 per month to each site they use.
  
  I mean, I visit 4 sites regularly (daily basis) and probably around 5 sites once a week, and countless others whenever necessary. Using the Salon model, I would be paying $24 per month to access my favorite 4 sites. What about the other sites I visit? Do I need to pay full price just to access them once in awhile. Granted, their information is useful to me, but not $6/month useful. Now, I relize they all wouldn't charge $6, but I was just using that as an example of how the monthly cost for a few web sites can add up. I would imagine most of the big sites would charge around $3-$10 per month.
  
  That brings us to the problem - many of the sites I visit (Salon, Britannica, etc.) want you to pay a flat monthly rate for premium access. I would be more likely to pay on my favorite sites you could have the option of paying-per-use. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Exactly why we need micropayments (Score:2) by MattW ( 97290 ) writes: Alter Relationship <matt@ender.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:16AM (#3077883) Homepage Even Salon has no business charging $6. _$6_? When someone can pay $10/month for their internet access, they're supposed to pay 60% of that to read a couple articles? And Salon doesn't even need dead trees. The problem is that they need that much from their subscribers because a lot of people won't take time to sign up for $1, maybe.
    
    There's good news, though. Eventually, all things become more competitive. Once many sites are paid sites, you'll begin to see content aggregation solutions. You'll get Salon along with a hundred other sites for $10. You'll see a couple you love, a few you regularly pop into, and you'll then pay. The privacy concerns are going to be horrid, however. How do you centrally authenticate those page views without centrally tracking the user? Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:Exactly why we need micropayments (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:39AM (#3078059) Well, that $6 a month is misleading. You can get a whole year for $30. Besides at 20 cents a day, that's cheaper than a daily newspaper in most cities. Depending on what you look for in your daily news source, I'd say it's a bargain. Wasn't worth it to me, though-- I already subscribe to magazines that give me the same types of news I was getting from Salon (plus I can easily take the magazines on the bus). Salon also lost some of the key columnists that would have gotten my subscription and replaced them with hacks. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • I agree (Score:1) by hendridm ( 302246 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @10:29AM (#3080844) Homepage I agree with you, but I was trying to avoid saying that because I didn't want to get flamed with "They have every right to charge what they want for *their* content" and "If you don't like it, don't use it" comments. I think $6 a month for one site is rediculous too. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:Exactly why we need micropayments (Score:1) by veltyen ( 206345 ) writes: Alter Relationship <veltyen@gmail.cGINSBERGom minus poet> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:06PM (#3082156) For some reason the Porn industry is always one step ahead in content distribution. Must be the low profit margins and flexible morals.
      
      The model you are talking about is the model that the larger 'Adult verification Systems' use. You buy one access code for a whole slew of sites.
      
      From my own personal experience this model works quite well. While paying $40 for a single site seems a rip-off, paying $40 for an AVS ID that allows you to visit a couple of sites that you go to regularily, as well as a couple of thousand other sites that you would never pony up for upfront seems a much better deal.
      
      When it comes down to it, paying ${an amount} for access to a slew of news sites (theage.com.au, cnn.com etc) I wouldn't have a problem with. For another more relevant example paying 5 bucks or so for one of the consolidated comics sites I wouldn't have a problem with either. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
      • It works for cable (Score:2) by MattW ( 97290 ) writes: Alter Relationship <matt@ender.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:47PM (#3082469) Homepage And hey, this is exactly what we get when we buy cable tv -- especially digital cable or satellite with their umpteen billion channels. I have like 200 channels on my digital cable. It's insane. I barely watch any of them, let alone all of them -- but its easy enough to offer the whole package. Obviously, there's a slight distribution difference with cable TV vs the net, but not a big one, you're just peer to peer with their web server with IP, instead of paying a provider for a feed and being forced to watch a subset of what they choose to provide. Imagine if cable could carry 2^32 channels ;) Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
      • Re:Exactly why we need micropayments (Score:2) by cabbey ( 8697 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:10PM (#3082529) Homepage Not that I'm familiar with this AVSID thing you describe, but it sounds like premium Keenspot... except that half the stuff on keen sucks, so it's more like $45 for a dozen sites, for a year. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Problem with paying for content (Score:1) by goodEvans ( 112958 ) writes: Alter Relationship <devans AT airatlanta DOT ie> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:39AM (#3078058) Homepage I have seen this argument time and time again. Sure it costs a lot of money to run, say, Slashdot. And the advertisers aren't bringing in the bucks anymore. So, subscriptions are seen as the way to go, but if everyone charges $6 a month, then people balk at paying $60 a month just to look at ten sites. What is needed is a new way for websites to calculate their charges.
    
    How about this:
    
    Figure out your costs per month. Hosting, rent, beer money. Start your subscription service based on people paying a percentage of that figure. The more people that sign up, the less they pay (you would need to cap it at something reasonable until it takes off). That way you get friends telling other friends to sign up. If your monthly subscriptions start to go below what would be chargable to a credit card, give people the option of either paying $10 up front, or waiting until the $10 is used up before automatically debiting the card (send them an email every month, explaining the state of play).
    
    MT broke a million hits this month. Most people just read the front page every day. 1,000,000 hits / 28 days gives you 35,214 users. MT being the site it is, 70% of those are regulars (25000). 50 of those % agree that Piro and Largo deserve their money (12,500). Now you and I both know that Largo would like 12,500x$6 per month, but Piro knows that he wouldn't get it. However, if 12,500 people paid for 1/12500th of the operating costs+b33r money, then you might actually get them.
    
    Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Problem with paying for content (Score:2) by Aexia ( 517457 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @07:51AM (#3079483) However, I doubt the average user can afford to pay, say, $6 per month [salon.com] to each site they use.
    
    It's cheaper if you go for the longer subscriptions. It's $30 for a year($2.50/mo). I paid $50 for two years($2.08/mo) though I'm not sure if they offer that anymore.
    
    $50 is what I'd spend on a video game or going out to bars during the weekend. I think it's worth it. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • look at the RealOne model (Score:2) by jon_c ( 100593 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @02:28PM (#3082029) Homepage I may hate RealNetworks, but i think their 'RealOne' idea is going to be the future for making money on the net.
    
    The way it works is you have a flat monthly subscription fee, you get a player (RealOne player) and access to a there partner network. Already i've come acrose clips of video where i needed to subscribe to RealOne to be able to view, if 80% of the video clips on the .NET required a relativly cheap subscription it would become much more attrative.
    
    Consequently, the porn industry has been doing this successfuly for years now, and as they say; when looking for new ways to expliot media, look at what comes out of porn.
    
    -Jon --
    this is my sig. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Effect in the Long Term (Score:2) by renehollan ( 138013 ) writes: Alter Relationship <`rhollan' `at' `clearwire.net'> on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @03:53AM (#3077743) Homepage Journal The poster above this one wrote, Offer people a good product, at the price the market is willing to bear, and they will buy it.

  And this is very true. There are services on the 'net that for which I hapilly pay: PayMyBills.com, for one, and they aren't exactly cheap ($10.95/month for 30 transactions, $0.50/transaction after that -- I think it's $1 or $2 more now, but my rate is grandfathered, and there are other plans available).

  What do I get for this $11? They provide me with a P.O. Box, scan my paper bills, email me notifications, allow me to pay online (via EFT or their cutting of a cheque from bank accounts to which I've given them access). They can handle on-line "smart bills", too, but this requires that they have access to your other on-line accounts. Having access to (some of) my bank accounts is enough -- all they could do is steal a months worth of expense $$$, but not screw up my other on-line service settings (I registered how many domains?!). Oh yeah, they can be instructed to pay certain bills regularly, or on-demand up to a certain amount. In short, they do a lot for that $11. While I'm not 100% satisified with their service, I'm satisfied enough to keep using it. Beats having to keep all those paper bill records, too (which was my primary reason for subscribing, actually).

  Compare this to other fee-based on-line services. A lot of them try to sell information, or entertainment, on a monthly-fee basis. The kind of information offered usually isn't worth the price, and, as for purchasing entertainment, I prefer a pay as you go model -- I must have spent $5000 on-line in 2001, mostly for electronic equipment, and the odd book (note: bn.com benefits from my boycott of Amazon.com due to their 1-click patent heavy-handedness)

  Now, PayMyBills was rather clever: they started charging me $3.95, then $5.95, then $6.95, and finally $10.95 a month. I suppose some would be irritated by this practice, and to some degree I was, but I'd say the service was worth $10 to $12 a month to me, so I stayed with them, and this latest price has been stable for a while. But, the important thing was that they weren't completely free to begin with (except for a trial period), so right off the bat, they got customers who were willing to pay. How much might be unknown, but it's the step from $0 to $(some small X) that's the biggest one in getting rid of free loaders. I'm sure that if they raise their prices too much, people will go back to paper statements, return envelopes, and stamps. The banks are starting to offer competition, but they generally don't want to deal with scanning paper bills.

  An area for growth here is magazine subscriptions. You know, I get EDN (well, that doesn't count, 'cause it's free for me), and Circuit Cellar Ink on paper. Sometimes one or two articles will be interesting. I usually toss the magazine after a week -- I used to archive "important" ones, but they just took up too much room. It would be nice if I could (a) see a synopsis of all the articles, (b) pay for just the ones I want to read, (and c) get a digital copy, perhaps a synopsis of all the articles I read on an end-of-year CD (for an extra fee). That's something for which I'd probably be willing to pay $10 a year plus $0.25 to $0.50 per complete article: basically half the price of a paper subscription for access, and the other half if I read all the articles.

  --
  You could've hired me. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Ads, Payments, Hoo Hah, etc. (Score:2) by ackthpt ( 218170 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:23AM (#3077926) Homepage Journal Ok, Lemme be the first to toss this out: Slashdot has been whispering about subscription service coming up where you can pay a nonminal fee to get ad free content. Neat? I don't think so, not the bit about paying, but about losing the cool ads. I can't speak for everyone, but I actually like those ThinkGeek ads and have put together a tidy list of things I'll buy once I have my taxes paid off.

  (I *really* want that THX sound system for a PC)

  I'd be willing to kick in a few bucks to prop up Slashdot, but as long as they don't have those horrible X10 pr0n cam or casino pop-under ads, I'm pretty cool with them, all I ask is don't make them gaudy, i.e. flashing, I keep a few extra windows open on the desktop just to drop over those, ads like that could be giving away gold by the pound and I wouldn't notice, because my first reflex to anything flashing is to bury it.

  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
  • Re:Ads, Payments, Hoo Hah, etc. (Score:2) by Gleef ( 86 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @05:42AM (#3078511) Homepage ackthpt writes:
    
    Slashdot has been whispering about subscription service coming up where you can pay a nonminal fee to get ad free content. Neat? I don't think so, not the bit about paying, but about losing the cool ads. I can't speak for everyone, but I actually like those ThinkGeek ads and have put together a tidy list of things I'll buy once I have my taxes paid off.
    
    A suggestion, Slashdot used to have a page which would show all the current banner ads and links to where they go. If they return that page then you would be able to pay for the extra speed of an ad-free site, but still have access to the information in the ads. Premium service would mean you could see the ads on your terms rather than ODSN's.
    
    I found that page to be quite useful at times. For example, I wanted a copy of Penguin Computing's banner ad featuring a giant Tux strolling through Redmond, but didn't want to wonder when the banner would appear on my page. --
    
    ----
    Open mind, insert foot. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
    • Re:Ads, Payments, Hoo Hah, etc. (Score:1) by psergiu ( 67614 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @09:39PM (#3083091) Mod parent up !!! --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct. Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Effect in the Long Term (Score:2) by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @07:22AM (#3079260) Journal People will balk initially at paying for content, but I think they'll gradually get used to it. I remember being pissed that I'm paying for cable AND for the commercials they're sending me, but now I've just come to accept it.
  
  I don't know about this. Some sites (Megatokyo, MacHall, Salon, and RPG World) I would pay for. Not $6/mo each, mind you, but they do provide quality content, and they are sites that (with the exception of Salon, whose good articles are all available to paid subscribers only) I visit regularly and would like to support, even if only in principle. This, however, presumes that I have money, which I don't, otherwise I would donate or buy 'fanboy merch'.
  
  The thing is, most people are greedy, and, as Piro said, seem to think that once something is free, it's their God Given Right to keep getting it for free. Some people will pay more for added value (say, if I, as a subscriber, could buy limited-edition Megatokyo or MacHall prints, get fanboy swag at a discount, or get to buy/read stuff ahead of time), but very few people will pay for Salon's service after getting it all for free, even if it -is- worth it, because it once was free. Nevermind that circumstances have changed, and ad revenue has declined, and nevermind that the service might actually be worth it (I will pay Salon $10/mo before I give Blue Mountain a penny).
  
  Personally, I think more websites should support things like paypal and so on. Oddly, most (comic) sites are -not- doing this, even shifting -away- from this, preferring to rely on revenues from merch sales and so on. Me, I'd rather throw $2 at them via paypal instead of buying a $15 shirt that they only make $2 profit from anyway. Maybe I'll buy a shirt once, but I'm not going to buy one every month, and I'd like to keep supporting Megatokyo and MacHall indefinitely.
  
  After all, $2 won't get me anything, but if all the MacHall fans out there threw $2 at Ian, maybe he could finally get a G4 that could play Black and White on a level with Micah's machine. Problem is, most people can't or won't. I mean, $2 is not that much, but a lot of people don't have credit cards, don't have paypal, don't want to set them up, etc. This is likely why Penny Arcade's donation box didn't work too well, or at least, why they discontinued it. If every MT/PA fan donated $2/mo, these guys could have lived like kings, but most people didn't care, were too lazy, or just couldn't (like me).
  
  Oh well. It'll come around sooner or later. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
  
  --Dan Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin
• Re:Effect in the Long Term (Score:2) by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) writes: Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @04:16PM (#3082373) Homepage " I remember being pissed that I'm paying for cable AND for the commercials they're sending me, but now I've just come to accept it."
  
  This will have a major impact on the web that you may not be obvious.
  
  Right now, in a day you might surf to 10-100 web sites. Why? Well, because its easy and free.
  
  But imagine a web where every site required $5-$10/month to view.
  
  How many could you afford? 1? 5? 10? 100?
  
  I doubt most people would pay for more than 2. And if the web consists of 2 "channels", what's the point? I might as well join AOL; they at least have a community, and everything doesn't cost me money (well, once I'm past the $20/month).
  
  Its unlikely this type of pay-per-web will happen because it removes the critical mass of information that makes the web useful and usable.
  
  And as long as fairly good information exists for "free", there is not paying market for "better" information.
  
  I just dont' see a viable way to charge on the net as more than a niche. ConsumerReports.org can do it because they have compelling information outside of the .org site, so the web serves as a mobile version of the magazine. But not many sites will have this sort of resource.
  
  The web will change, but I don't think it will be in the direction you seem to think it will. I suspect anybody who claims to know is lying. --
  You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin

1 2 3 4 Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

• 694 commentsFinland Basic Income Trial Left People 'Happier But Jobless'
• 628 commentsEurope Plans Ban on Plastic Cutlery, Straws and More
• 503 commentsEurope Sticks a Knife Into Vegan Meat
• 490 commentsElon Musk Emails Employees About 'Extensive and Damaging Sabotage' By Employee
• 435 commentsAfter Amazon Increases Worker Wages, Whole Foods Responds By Cutting Worker Hours

next

Building Linux Virtual Private Networks

104 comments previous

Apple Wins the 2002 Technical Grammy Award

20 comments window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({ mode: 'text-links-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-text-links', placement: 'Below Article Text Links', target_type: 'mix' });

A separation of church and state is not defined in the Constitution, nor in the amendments. It's slightly implied, but not really stated clearly. Rather, it was an idea put forth by Thomas Jefferson and people have taken it to heart as he was one of the largest players in the development of the US in those early years. Oh yeah... sure... just because you read it or heard it somewhere and can cackle like a hen in heat it must be true? BULLSHIT! In 1962 Madalyn Murray O'Hair Kicked God, the Bible and Prayer Out of Public Schools . . . And 10 Other Myths About Church and State http://www.au.org/myths.htm Thinking people might want to remember that blacks, women,& non-landownersdidn't have the right to vote then. Also remember that a sudden upsurge of anti-church mania didn't hit the Constitution makers back then either. There was a DAMN GOOD REASON WHY CHURCH & STATE ARE SEPARATE IN AMENDMENT #1 of the Constitution. The church was going nuts with power back then discriminating against other Christians (just as they do now)! It helps greatly to look at history along with the words of our Founding Fathers to see just how shameless a lie the current church is trying to sell the sheeple. When given absolute power, the church has proven time and again that they cannot restrain themselves from using it and abusing it for their own ends. The sad fact that so many "Christians" bear false witness, or bluntly, lie(It's in the Ten Commandments for God's sake! Which these fake Christians are so eager to get propped on courthouse walls and in schools and yet have never taken to heart) to get their way that they know little about the religion they proclaim loudly and endlessly to serve. Give these men of God the state's power and they'll abuse it again without pause or reflection. http://www.ifas.org/fw/9606/newengland.html (Article copied without permission of the author) Church and state in early New England

By Bernard A. Drew
The Pilgrims stepped ashore at Plymouth, first onto a firm rock, then sandy soil. This is symbolic of a young America: at first stonily exclusive in its religious tolerance and governance, then becoming more giving with the spiritual divergence of the population. The democratic urge which came with the struggle for revolution culminated in the adoption of a Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, which formally separated church and state.

The Mayflower, with 102 passengers, most simple farmers and artisans, sailed for the New World in 1620 in search of religious freedom. They disagreed with the ritual and doctrine of the Anglican faith in England, and felt a loss of cultural identity in Holland, where they had taken refuge. Arriving north of the bounds of the Virginia Colony, from which they had secured a grant, the travelers forged a Mayflower Compact before setting ashore at Plymouth. The agreement to form a government was a compromise, as only a third of the voyagers were religious separatists; it referred to God, but allowed liberty of worship.

However, a Bible commonwealth -- if not strictly speaking a theocracy -- emerged in practice, with the coming within a decade of another group of restless English. The Puritans crossed the sea, not to escape their mother country's state religion, but to establish it in what they felt would be a purer form. They wanted less "popish" ceremony. There was strict observance of the Sabbath. Frivolity was prohibited; Christmas ignored. Nonconformists and reformers, they were to be intolerant of any but their own church. Settling in Salem, the Massachusetts Bay Company held a broad charter to rule itself, admit members, bear arms, and defend itself.

Clergymen didn't hold public office, but they advised magistrates on major matters. Elections were held each year by public assembly. But the privilege to vote or hold office was restricted to those who belonged to the established church.

"They were advocates of a definite religious system, which they came to the new world to put into practice," asserted historian Herbert L. Osgood. "So important did this system seem to them that they made all interests, social and political, contribute to its maintenance and advancement."

There soon arose challenges to the Puritan system. Roger Williams refused to take the pulpit in Boston because the congregation would not publicly renounce ties with the Church of England. He further challenged powers of magistrates and questioned the right to take land from Native Americans.

Williams spoke loudly, and in 1635 he was tried and banished. He removed to the wilderness at Providence, and soon established a government which was the first in America to be democratic and with church and state functions separate. Wil-liams remained rigid in his own church, but the Rhode Island colony was openly tolerant of all sects. It became a haven for Baptists, Quakers, Jews and others.

On Williams' heels, Anne Hutchinson in 1637 took exception to the Massachusetts establishment on religious as well as political grounds. She said that grace, not works, was the key to an individual's entrance to heaven.
At gatherings with colonial women, she satirized sermons and criticized leadership. She said she heard directly from God -- grounds, the Puritans felt, to try her for heresy and excommunicate her.

America's population grew, and it became more socially and religiously diverse. During the Great Awakening in the 1640s, Presbyterians and others asserted their need to worship in their own way. In 1849, Maryland passed the Toleration Act guaranteeing freedom of religion and protecting its Catholic population.

Religiously zealous Quakers, believing in inner lights from the Holy Ghost, came to this country in the 1650s with missionary purposes. They were particularly vilified by the Puritans. Punishment for a first conviction of Quakerism was one ear cut off; for a second offense, the second ear, and for third, the tongue bored with a hot iron. Mary Dyer, a persistent Quaker, ignored her banishment once too often and was hanged in Boston in 1660.

Cracks in the Puritan bulwark appeared from within as well. The second generation began to draw away from the rigid church. This prompted a lowering of membership requirements in 1662.

There was a general rationalist movement of thought in Western culture. The British Crown, reacting to an age of enlightenment in Europe, signed a Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 giving toleration to Quakers, Baptists, and Episcopalians. The Crown revoked Massachusetts' charter in 1684, partly because of discrimination issues, and in rewriting Massachusetts' charter in 1691 removed a religious test for voting.

A last gasp of the Puritan iron hand came with the Salem trials in the 1690s, when Cotton Mather and others stirred fear of rampant witchcraft. Twenty died before public sense intervened and the debacle ended.
Theocentricity was severely diluted in the colonies by the time of the American Revolution. The issue was slightly different in Virginia. A colony staunchly Church of England from the start, it allowed other faiths, but reserved tax income to itself. The Revolution tainted the Anglican church because of its association with the Crown. A fervid democratic spirit emerged from the war.

Thomas Jefferson, convinced that government had no business in the affairs of man and religion, with the support of James Madison and others, prevailed with the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom which was enacted in 1786. It established tolerance and disallowed the use of general tax funds to support a single church.

The framers of the Constitution largely ignored religion in drafting their document. The only reference is to there being no religious test to vote or hold public office. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights asserts that there be no abridgment of the right to worship, and that government remain neutral in matters of religion.

In debating the Constitution at the Virginia convention in 1787, delegate Zachariah Johnston asserted that by not sanctioning a single religion, "You will find that the exclusion of tests will strongly tend to establish religious freedom."

French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in 1835, thought this was a paradox, but upon investigation concluded, "I know that, apart from influence proper to itself, religions can at times rely on the artificial strength of laws and the support of the material powers that direct society. There have been religions intimately linked to earthly governments, dominating men's souls both by terror and by faith, but when a religion makes such an alliance, I am not afraid to say that it makes the same mistake as any man might; it sacrifices the future for the present, and by gaining a power to which it has no claim, it risks its legitimate authority."

Bernard Drew is a freelance writer and historian who lives in Massachusetts.

© 1998 Institute for First Amendment Studies, Inc.

Amazing what you can find when you get off your lazy ass and look.

The problem with Bible clubs is not whether they can be held at the school (singling out a group for exclusion, esp. a religious one violates the First Amendment), nor whether the students can form these clubs (the courts have consistantly ruled that students have a right to express religious beliefs in school). The problem is that these clubs require teacher sponsors, and that's the barrier between church and state. A teacher in a public school is an agent of the government and can neither encourage or deny any religion. It gets really messy because if you are a student in Mrs. Christian's class, and Mrs. Christian hosts a school-sponsored Bible study, you may think that you need to attend the Bible study group in order to get a good grade. Coersion by the government. That's the mess that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid (they were all Deists, by the way, not avidly religious guys).

Everyone overreacts to these Church/State issues. It's so darn messy. Basically any government entity has to step back and let everyone else speak, and make sure everyone has an equal voice. It's not easy to be the government in that situation, especially if you have your own strong set of beliefs.

Check out Americans United for Seperation of Church and State. They're good people.

But try as I might, I can't find anything on their site about privacy. I've joined the EFF only after making sure they weren't going to sell/release my info. It doesn't look like the ACLU has the same types of policies.

Anyone know if it's possible to join organizations like the ACLU or Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State (www.au.org) in such away that privacy is assured? Also, is it generally better to join the national ACLU or a local chapter (both have web sites...)

Believe it or not, I emailed the local ACLU branch and didn't get a decent answer. I'm guess they're pretty busy fighting evil. ;)

W
-------------------

Well, I am generally socially liberal and fiscally moderate-to-conservative. Which puts me more in line with Gore than with any other candidate, including Nader. But what really solidifies my vote is the future of the supreme court: "Even while disavowing any anti-abortion litmus test, Republican nominee-apparent George W. Bush has said he will seek to appoint more Justices like Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court." While these justices claim to want to follow the original intent, they seem to ignore the intent of James Madison regarding the rights of conscience. Additionally, when individual rights and liberties come in conflict with the powers of a civil authority, they almost always vote to support the civil authority. That is the biggest reason I'll be voting for Gore.

Cheers,

Craig

--

That's funny, I thought they were protesting at the Republican convention. Obviously, the protesters don't belive people should have opinions that differ with their own.

I am not an activist, nor do I know any people who were protesting in PA, but I think that your statement is inaccurate. I doubt that most of them were protesting that fact that a Republican convention was or could be held, but rather were providing alternate views and ideas. There goal was not to eliminate speach that they deemed wrong, it was to counter it with ideas they deemed right. They want a Republican convention to not happen; not becuase the government should not let it, but becuase no one would attend a Republican convention in their ideal world.

---
http://www.au.org

Just Some Guy dun said:

Why, oh why, is everything ludicrous attributed to right-wingers? I am just about as far-right-wing as you can get, and I assure that my core beliefs do not condone censorship in any form. I mean, remember the PMRC (record labeling)? That was Tipper Gore, not Pat Buchanan.

Hate to have to bring some things up to dash the illusion there, but there are some things I do need to bring up in light of your venting...

1). The vast majority of groups pushing censorship, and for that matter a lot of flatly ludicrous stuff, are right-wing--specifically, members of various political groups which are basically run by fundamentalist "Christians" in the US. (For that matter, Israel sees the same thing with ultraorthodox "Jews", and darn near every country with a signifigant Islamic population deals with fundamentalist "Moslems" of the two main denominations of their religion. For THAT matter, as I understand it, India's having the same damn problem with fundamentalist "Sikhs" and fundamentalist "Hindus".)

2). For all intents and purposes, there is no functioning left-wing in the United States. The US has literally gone so far to the right (largely because of influence of fundamentalist "Christian" groups, which at one point had pretty much taken over the entire Republican Party apparatus in thirty-four states; they have apparently led to the self-destruction now of a second party [the Reform Party]. It's not all the GOP's fault, though--I'll note that in a minute) that were Richard Nixon to run today on his present political platform, he would be considered a liberal. The most "liberal" parties in the US with any large percentage of voters (the Democratic and Libertarian parties) would be considered right-moderate in most political systems in the industralised world (yes, that includes Canada, too); the largest "conservative" party (the GOP) would be hard-right in nearly any other country's political system, and the second or third-largest "conservative" political party in the US (the US Taxpayer's Party) is, for all intents and purposes, run by extreme far-righters in the US and in fact promotes theocracy as a platform. (The Reform Party, before it basically started destroying itself when Pat Buchanan got considered for nomination, probably fell in between the Republicans and Libertarians; now, for all intents and purposes, the Reform Party will probably end up as two parties, one beign slightly more left-leaning but both still firmly on the right.) One newspaper, which started in the 1800's as a "moderate conservative" paper of the times and has had pretty much the same political bent ever since it started, is now considered one of the hardest-left papers in the US. It would also probably be considered moderate or moderate-left in political spectrums in most industralised countries.

Sad to say, but the political spectrum in the US today is less like other industrialised countries and more like those in which a fair amount of corruption occurs (such as in many "third-world" nations) or which are having very serious problems with fundamentalists trying to subvert the very structure of the government itself (this is certainly true in the US, and in a lot of other places you hear about in the news--like Israel, or Pakistan and India (basically a pissing contest between Muslim fundies and Hindu fundies which could well end up in a nuclear war before it's over with) or Sudan (which is having a rather nasty civil war between Muslim fundies and Christian fundies)).

2a). On a related note, and this is very important to note with anything related to fundy movements in general--most fundy groups, especially so in the US, are basically run by power-hungry individuals. In the US at least (and probably elsewhere--there's real signs of it at least in some ultra-Orthodox communities, and among nations like Iran and Afghanistan especially), many of the people who are members of the various fundy PACs here--and especially the more decidedly active ones--are members of churches that can be described as coercive groups much as Scientology can be described as a coercive group. Many of these groups use various mind-control techniques on their members to not only have them basically allow their minister to think for them, but to specifically "block out" anything that could be averse to what the minister says (these include basically teaching that the people in the church or group are the only ones who are "saved" and that anyone who isn't "saved" is in direct league with Satan; teaching that any doubt is the result of either demonic oppression or (if someone else says it) outright possession and one needs to "pray the doubts out" or have exorcisms performed (often involuntarily); forced confession of "sins" (which have included the involuntary outing of gays in church; most Religious Right groups are homophobic at best and some (like Fred Phelps, or Donald Wildmon, or Kentucky's own Frank Simon) are downright infamous for it); telling members to only do business with "members of like faith" (including printing special directories, like the "Christian Yellow Pages") and to only watch media that is affiliated with the church because all other media sources are "worldly" at best and outright "Satanic" at worst, not to mention businesses; "shepherding" programs and "cell churches" (in most programs, the people are divided into groups of five which, in essence, play "Big Brother" on each other--if someone has doubts, the other members try to work them more into the group, in extreme cases by methods like involuntary exorcisms), and so-called "divine lies" (basically, lying about your goals or at the least being dishonest about them to lure folks in to "win more souls for Christ"--this encompasses everything from "hell house" haunted-houses which are marketed as regular haunted houses for "educational purposes" which in fact are used to make people listen to fundy preaching (and yes, sometimes the doors ARE locked and the people not allowed to leave, so yes, they are in essence forced to listen) to "pep talks" run in high schools by groups that have fundy athletes come in to prosyletise, often on the premise that these are "anti-drug" or "self-esteem" talks (most of the time, these assemblies are mandatory to attend for kids, and often the groups will take innocuous-sounding names like "Athletes Against Drugs" or suchlike to hide their fundy links) to "free pizza parties" held by fundy groups who then hold the kids for hours, not allowing them to leave (it is almost never revealed that the "pizza party" is in fact being run by a fundy group) to "stealth candidates" for political offices (which don't reveal their fundy links till elected)...). Basically, because a lot of these groups ARE essentially Bible-based cults, they can feed their members an amazing amount of horsesheisse and (because they literally have nothing else to "error-check" it with) their followers will swallow it. If anything, most folks involved are to be pitied (the only ones that really deserve hate are probably the leaders who outright manipulate their followers).

There has not been a terrible amount of info on how "Bible-based cults" do manipulate their followers until fairly recently, largely because most folks associate "cults" with "new religions" and most folk haven't wanted to believe that "Christian" groups can and sadly do turn into coercive groups preaching far more of a god of Fear, Hate and Loathing (both of self and others) than a god of love, acceptance, and respect (which is what, at least with those folks whom I've met who I sense actually "get" what Yshua was saying, feel it's supposed to be about anyways). I also expect this is a big reason why most mainstream churches in the US haven't spoken out about "Bible-based cults" except in cases where they've been really extreme (part of this, too, might be because--sadly--coercive tactics are getting into larger and larger denominations; one of the largest fundy denominations in the US, which is in essence a Bible-based cult, was the major source of TV preachers for years and has well over one million members...a recent expose of the "Brownsville Movement" (which is centered at one of the larger churches in the US for this denomination in Pensacola, Florida) using coercive tactics is one of the major exceptions; the Southern Baptists, which have had their entire church head and seminary taken over by the fundamentalist wing of the denomination, are starting to dance close to using coercive tactics though they aren't as bad as the "traditionally" fundy denominations yet); part of that, though, may be because most fundy denominations (and especially those which are basically Bible-based cults) don't have anything to do with most major ecumenical conventions, holding their own separate worldwide conferences because they feel mainstrean Christianity is "lukewarm" at best and outright perverted by Satan at worst).

I'll also note (this is a personal aside, based on my own observations of having grown up in a family of raving fundies and having seen far more than I like of the internals of the Religious Right and fundamentalist groups in the US) that--probably because many of these folks have literally been in these groups for generations (I know of three-generation households in the group I walked away from; also, many of the younger especially are literally isolated from the outside world from birth all the way through college (fundies push homeschooling in large part so that kids CAN be isolated and not see anything that could spur them to walk away; there is now even a college being set up specifically for fundy-homeschooled kids to train them to be "political leaders for Christians", homeschooled kids being perfect fodder because they have literally been raised and brainwashed in Bible-based cults from birth), partly because walkaways from groups one has been raised in are EXTREMELY rare (pretty much most kids walk away when their parents do, or if they are forced out of their homes due to "irreconcilable differences" like the kid discovering he's gay; there are literally no statistics on kids walking away on their own (with no help from parents or exit counselors) from groups they were raised in because it is so rare), and partly because this is all they know as a result...a large percentage of those involved in Bible-based cults and in groups like the FRC are, to put none too fine a term on it, control-freaks. This is probably because the only real model they have IS the preacher, who basically uses coercive tactics (and a hell of a lot of FUD) to keep his flock "in line" and not questioning the preacher--this is especially true of folks who have been raised in such groups for generations--and so they basically take the whole "coercive-tactics"/"control-freak" thing to ALL walks of life. Literally everything from politics (a big part of why fundies want a theocracy here has to do with Control and Power over others; again, this is probably an extension of how their own ministers and deacons use Power and Control to keep the flock in line, along with the major "us versus them" mindset in such groups) to parenting (a lot of fundy parents will homeschool kids specifically to keep a maximum amount of Control and Power over them--this is also why they push so much for censorship initiatives to "protect the children", and a lot of fundies won't allow their kids to attend non-Christian colleges or allow them to attend schools with coed dorms or alcohol on campus [yes, I've had experience with this; the fact Beloit College had coed dorms and alcohol on campus pretty much shot all hell out of any chance I had of going there, even without money concerns]). Basically, to put a fine point on it, many of them are control-freaks by basis of being in groups that are run by control-freaks who use coercive tactics, and they have no other model to use (either by model of literally not knowing any better, or by model of literally being so brainwashed that pretty much they have nothing else to go by).

A good starter for exploring the mindset of which I'm talking on is here. It's a page for walkaways, specifically from Bible-based cults, run by a person who was formerly involved in one (he walked away, and now actually runs a "fight-the-right" group largely because of his experiences in the coercive group); it gives you a lot of perspective on where they're coming from, if you've never been misfortunate enough to have experienced Fundie Hell for yourself. (I honestly don't recommend the latter for anyone, especially not kids and other living things. It can screw you up for life, seriously. Look at me. ;)

2b). As another aside--this is probably not widely known by folks, but there are a lot of businesses in the US--many of them Fortune 500 companies, yet--that not only are affiliated with the Right Wing in the US, but are in fact members and actually supportive of it. An enlightening--and scary page--for starters is here--this is a page featuring info on the Coalition for National Policy, which is essentially a secretive, invite-only think-tank for the Religious Right in the United States. It features a membership list that includes, among others, many members of the Coors family, a (former) Presidential candidate, and a number of representatives to US and state legislatures. There's also a good link here that talks about the CNP and a lot more of the big names in the Religious Right...

For more starters...both the Coors family (yep, as in Coors Breweries) and the Waltons (yep, as in Sam's Wholesale/Wal-Mart--as in, before Sam Walton died, one of the single richest individuals on the planet, worth more than Bill Gates, and only surpassed by the Sultan of Brunei; the Waltons collectively are still in the top 100 of the richest people on the planet) are heavily involved with the Religious Right, outright subsidizing them and being sympathetic to concerns (to give examples--the Coors family supported Amendment 2 in Colorado, which would have rescinded civil-rights laws that included sexual orientation; the Waltons have made it a policy not to carry albums with "Tipper-stickers", refused to carry heavy-metal magazines for a long time, and refuse to provide "morning-after" contraceptives even though they will provide Viagra). Needless to say, these are two of the biggest companies in the US. Another interesting one is AmWay--AmWay in and of itself has been accused of using coercive tactics with its sales representatives, but is also run by fundamentalists with links to the CNP and AmWay has been known to bankroll fundy groups in past. Not even home shopping is immune--as it turns out, the person who owns Home Shopping Club, Home Shopping Network (the off-hours version of HSC that shows up on a lot of "Christian" TV stations and also used to show up on the "Family Channel") and PAX TV is a major bankroller of the Religious Right (more on that below).

For even more shockers...a lot of times, Religious Right groups deal in a fair bit of "cloaking". The Arthur S. DeMoss foundation (a Religious Right group that pushes "Christian Reconstructionism", has actually endorsed Christian Identity groups on occasion, and pretty much is a major funding source for the Religious Right; it was founded by the widow of a Religious Right supporter who happened to be a multi-millionaire) hides most of its nastier stuff by not only doing innocuous-sounding adverts for adoption and "Power for Living" (basically a book which hawks fundamentalist Christianity), but has sympathetic multi-million-dollar stars like the woman from "Children of a Lesser God" and Jeff Gordon (great...have NASCAR drivers hawking fundamentalism to the kiddies...Jeff Gordon, probably more than anyone in NASCAR short of the Pettys, is seen as particularly "kid-friendly" and as a general, All-American "Wheaties"-box boy) and NFL stars hawking for them. (Knowing that group, I'm almost willing to bet that either a) they might not have been too forthcoming with these folks other than that they were a group promoting a book about "Christian living", or b) a hell of a lot of people in show-business need a good expose like there has been with Scientologists in Hollywood...more info on the Arthur S. Demoss Foundation here and here [thank you Google...it seems that Pathfinder is not wanting to behave well].) The Family Channel, until recently, was owned by the same folks who brought you Pat Robertson and the 700 Club--it was renamed from the "Christian Broadcasting Network" to make it sound like it offered "family-friendly" programming and to hide its links to the Religious Right (as Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition had started to get a rather bad name). In fact, the Family Channel was sold to FOX, which does have some links to the right in the US (though not as bad as, say, Coors).

PAX TV, which is a TV network set up by a fundamentalist (again, using the exact same canard that the "Family Channel" did in its Pat Robertson days--as a purveyor of "family-friendly entertainment" which conveniently neglects to mention its links to the Religious Right) and which is largely carried on "Christian" TV stations, is heavily bankrolled by Home Shopping Club and Home Shopping Network (which--not exactly coincidentially--also showed on the Family Channel on off-hours and shows on a lot of "Christian" TV stations in off-hours) and--even worse--is also owned 20 percent by CBS and NBC was planning to buy 32 percent in PAX TV (this would be over 400 million dollars). More info here, and more info on PAX here...for that matter, the very head of Focus on the Family (which spawned off Family Research Council as a lobbying wing), James Dobson, makes a rather healthy living selling parenting books promoting "tough love" and "discipline".

Even besides all THAT, a lot of the major Religious Right groups get a lot of funding from members, and many of them can actually get it tax-free (by either setting up separate "political" wings when the heat from the IRS gets too much, or by setting it up with roughly the same tax exemptions a church would get). There are also local businesses...as one guide has advised, if you want to boycott teh Religious Right you almost have to look through one of the directories made for the Religious Right or avoid every business with an ichthus-fish on it...and besides all THAT, Religious Right groups are increasingly going stealth or relying on certain "code words" within the community like "Family", "Heritage", or names confusingly similar to existing groups (one anti-abortion "counseling center" actually named themselves "PPC, Inc." and based themselves in the same building as the local Planned Parenthood office; a legal group that bankrolls and supports lawsuits friendly to Religious Right causes is named "American Center for Law and Justice"; a really amazing number of Religious Right groups use "Family" or "Heritage" or "Christian Life Center" (in the case of churches) because these are actual code words in the fundamentalist community for fundy-friendly causes).

Needless to say, unfortunately, the Religious Right isn't exactly hurting for money and, short of ALL of their members walking away combined with a massive economic crash that disrupts nearly the entire worldwide financial system to the point that it forces us to go back to barter or most of their members walking away combined with a massive boycott of ANYTHING the Religious Right has their fingers in, they aren't going to be hurting for money anytime soon. :P

2c). Media that isn't tied with the Religious Right somehow is often basically bullied into submission. As noted above, a lot of folks in fundy groups have a very "us versus them" viewpoint to begin with--they literally believe they are fighting Satan and all of us not in a fundy group are practicing Satanists as a direct result. :P If ANYTHING is reported whatsoever that is in the LEAST critical of the Religious Right, they will protest (even if they don't read the paper or watch non-"Christian" TV because it might be "Satanically influenced") because, in essence, they will be informed about it and told to raise forty kinds of hell over it. And they will. In droves. (A Pensacola paper found this out when they basically exposed the "Brownsville Movement" as a Bible-based cult; "20/20" did an expose of the "Brownsville Movement" and likewise were damn near pilloried (of course, most fundies were already boycotting anything relating to Disney because {horror!} they dared give equal rights to gay couples for benefits and had a "gay Day" there, but that's beside the point)...my family raged for days about the expose because "Oh god, they make us all out to be cultists or something" (I hate to inform them, but, well, if the shoe fits...I'd think instead of ranting at ABC maybe you should do some serious soul-searching on whether the chuch is doing the Right Thing or not, but then again, I walked away and I dare to be sensible about the whole thing instead of getting my panties in a wad)...read your newspaper's editorials everytime someone dares suggest that the Religious Right and theocracy or even putting the Ten Commandments in schools might possibly not be the be-all, end-all to the world's problems to get an idea of just WHAT kinds of cain they do raise.) Burger King and Pepsi, among others, have literally been bullied out of running certain adverts or sponsoring programs because of letter-writing campaigns by the American Family Association (a hard-line Religious Right lobbying group which has some decidedly homophobic tendencies); many ABC affiliates were likewise bullied into not carrying "NYPD Blue" during its first two seasons for the same reason.

3). Now, to a direct point I was going to mention--hate to break it to you, but the PMRC is by no bloody means liberal. Tipper Gore (and Al Gore) are (as noted above) right-moderate AT MOST; the other co-founder, oddly enough, just happens to be Elizabeth Dole, wifey of Bob Dole and onetime candidate for the 2000 GOP nomination for President. One of the founding members was Susan Baker (wife of Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III (R)).

More to the point, though, the PMRC has many a link to Religious Right groups. First off, they have carried advertising in PMRC literature for "Back In Control Training Center" and other "training centers"; Back In Control was basically an inpatient program run by two former LAPD officers which was advertised to "de-metal" or "de-punk" kids, which was in effect a brainwashing center with links to the Religious Right and which has claimed, among other things, that Wiccans are Satanists and that the Magen David (the Jewish star) is a Satanic symbol and that if kids are wearing "gothy" or "metal" clothing this is a sure sign of Satan-worship. Back In Control has also worked with a lot of police departments and schools, and (ObSlashdot) is one of the groups that is directly responsible for kids being harassed and worse after Columbine for wearing "goth" clothing. (More info here,here (in passing, but in direct relation to how Back In Control Training Center has been heavily promoted by the PMRC), and here.)

Also, they've promoted and used material from Bob Larson Ministries; for those who aren't aware, Bob Larson is a "foamin' fundy" radio preacher who, among other things, promotes censorship and the whole Religious Right agenda. Among other things, he's called peace symbols and the Nike swoosh Satanic symbols (no, I'm not making this up) as well as the good old canard about the Magen David supposedly being a Satanic symbol. More info here (or the newer version here--the "Bob Larson Fan Site"--trust me, the kinds of horsesheisse Larson spews is the kind that must be seen for itself to be believed), and a lovely expose in a British Columbia Christian mag here. Yes, the PMRC actually promoted material from this nut :P

Incidentially, you can confirm all the info above by getting a copy of the book "50 Ways To Fight Censorship" by Dave Marsh (head of Rock and Rap Confidential, and the guy who coined the phrase "rock and roll" incidentially). It's out of print, but most better libraries do have a copy, and if you can't find it there, there are all manner of online bookstores who could probably scare up a copy for you.

Oh, and if you wondered whether the PMRC still has links to the Religious Right...the answer, darling, is an emphatic yes. The present head, one Barbara Wyatt, just happens (ironically) to also sit on the board of Focus on the Family (!)...more info here (again, thank you Google; the more recent version is here, btw), and here.

And BTW, just for the record--I don't have an agenda, other than being a walkaway from a Bible-based cult who really does not the US to descend into a theocracy (I lived under one for all intents and purposes for 25 years of my life; trust me, it sucks, and it will suck twenty times worse if they can get their theocracy nationwide) and who knows all too well both the mindset these folks operate under and the real danger (to freedom and, ultimately, to the psyches of both their memberships and those who are family to them) these groups ultimately present. In essence, I don't want the rest of y'all on Slashdot to have to put up with what I had to put up with for 25 years of my life, and an especially hellish thirteen years after I walked away and I had to live in a household of which the majority of people were raving fundies (and the rest of my family was, slowly but steadily, being assimilated by the Bible-Based Cult Of Borg). It sucks. Bigtime. :P (I note this because, when I made a little post exposing the agenda of the Family Research Council, I was accused of having an agenda. Sorry, I've got no more of an agenda than a kid who's been abused has in getting the abuse to stop. :P)

Regarding the letter to the Family Research Council--I honestly wish you the best of luck there.

I also think you will probably have better luck having an in-depth conversation on the merits of Red Hat versus Slackware with the walls of your home than convince the Family Research Council of the fact the software is flawed and even blocks partisan material.

This is largely because the Family Research Council would consider this a feature and not a bug. :P

For those who aren't aware--the Family Research Council is, essentially, the lobbying arm of a group called Focus on the Family. FoF is probably the largest Religious Reich organisation in the US now (yes, even bigger than the Christian Coalition) and basically split off Family Research Council some years back in order to preserve their tax-exempt status. (As an aside, often state FoF branches will operate under different names to hide their affiliation with FoF.)

To be perfectly blunt, FoF and its affiliates have an agenda--to basically get as many raving fundamentalists in office as possible and to get the fundamentalist vote out, in hopes of getting enough people in office to essentially turn the United States into a fundamentalist theocracy. If you want to get a good idea about the "face" politics they support, just look at the political platform of (recently dropped out) presidential candidate Gary Bauer--this is the guy who founded Family Research Council when it was split off of FoF.

To these folks, pushing censorware is just another way of them "saving" us--whether or not we particularly want to be "saved" or not--and making the US into a "nice Christian nation again". (Many of these folks, by the way, also subscribe to "Christian Reconstructionism"--that is, the canard that the Founding Fathers actually meant the US to be a theocracy.) This is also why they tend to run "stealth" candidates (candidates who do not reveal their links to Religious Reich groups until elected) specifically to things like school boards--they want to get them young so they can indoctrinate them young, because they know that if they're gotten young they likely won't walk away. (This is also why they push homeschooling a lot, by the way, as well as vouchers for private schools--it's been the actual stated goal of many Religious Reich groups to get the school system totally dismantled so that kids are forced to go to sectarian schools.)

FoF's president, Bob Dobson, also makes a rather lucrative career selling books on "disciplining your kids"--usually involving a mix of censorship, forcing God down their throats, and liberal amounts of spanking the kids (part of the reason corporal punishment is NOT illegal in the US--or, for that matter, why the US is the only nation besides Somalia which has still not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child--is because fundamentalist groups like FRC lobby heavily against such laws, claiming that it'll take away their right to "spare the rod and spoil the child" or to "raise their kids as they see fit". In some cases where it has crossed the line into child abuse, some fundies have even argued in court that the state prohibiting them from beating the living hell out of their kids is a violation of their First Amendment rights to religion and that beating the hell out of their kids is actually a duty of their religion).

I happen to be a walkaway from what may be described as a "bible-based cult", and I can say that a fair percentage of the harder-core membership of many (if not most) Religious Reich groups in the US happen to be from churches that use coercive tactics on their membership. In other words, the ones who are doing the lobbying are more than likely brainwashed, they have probably already mentally defined anyone who isn't on their side and who dares to tell them about "flaws" in the software is directly in league with Satan (most Religious Reich groups, and most bible-based cults, DO have a very "us-versus-them" attitude--many Bible-based cults even go to the point of "deliverance ministry" (even your doubts are caused by demons, and the only cure is to "pray them out" or get an exorcism...rather like some of the nastier mind-control techniques in Scientology, actually)...). It is going to take a considerably larger clue-by-four than that to make them change their minds.

The FRC has a rather long record of lobbying not just for censorship, but for the entire Religious Reich platform. On occasion, this has even gone to slandering folks who speak against them...don't be surprised if you find possibly much of the town turned against you (I've read in previous reports that the town in general is quite conservative and beholden to the Religious Reich).

Some links so that the curious may learn more (and educate themselves thereby):

Religious Reich Database F section--also info on FoF

Extended coverage of FRC from above site

ACLU's open letter to FRC

People for the American Way speaks out against FRC campaign against hate-crimes laws that would protect gay/les/bi/trans folks

PFAW's "Who's Who on the Religious Right"--FRC section

here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and even here very recently, you can see what the FRC and the rest of the Religious Reich have to say to their own members

QRD's info on FRC--this also has a lot of quotes of the FRC in their own words to their supporters

Info on the FRC from the Matthew Shephard website--more FRC "in their own words" and at their worst

EFF's "Know Your Enemies--includes info on FRC

Walk Away--a good resource not only for those walking away from "bible-based cults" but also gives you a glimpse of the mindset these groups have--important in debating them. (The head of Institute for First Amendment Studies is himself a walkaway from a bible-based cult.)

And since I don't want to just talk about them without providing some way to fight the Religious Reich (otherwise I wouldn't have posted the damn warning about the FRC's agenda ;):

Arguing Against Faith--basically, how to debate fundies

A whole big mess of resources on how to fight the Religious Reich

Another mess of good links

and still another mess of good links

Skipp Porteous (walkaway and head of IFAS) writes on how to win against the Religious Reich

A really good expose of the Religious Reich, including info on the "code words" they use with their members

Defending Yourself Against The Religious Right

11 Things You Can Do To Fight The Religious Right--this is good for regular folks too. (As an aside--Domino's is no longer owned by fundies, but Coors Brewery is)

Major groups fighting the right wing:

EFF (as if you didn't need any more reasons to send that donation in ;)--they fight censorware initiatives)

Peacefire--the source for info on censorware, including how most censorware has just a wee bit of a fundamentalist agenda

Institute for First Amendment Studies--highly recommended. Includes info on the Coalition for National Policy (basically the "think-tank" of the Religious Reich) including membership lists. Head of group is walkaway from a fundamentalist "Bible-based cult".

People for the American Way. Highly recommended is their "Right Wing Watch Online" section.

ACLU

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

The Interfaith Alliance--progressive religious groups united for tolerance

Rock Out Censorship--naturally concentrates on music censorship, but has really good info on other school-related issues, including filtering. (I'm a wee bit biased on this one, much as I am with IFAS--I have done volunteer work for ROC before. They're a damned good group, though.)

In any case, I wish y'all the best of luck in fighting them...I'm not sure you realised just what the hell you were getting into, but if there's anything we can do to help here on Slashdot, let us know.

Some anonymous coward wrote:

Y'ever notice how much cereal box model/race car "driver" Jeff Gordon looks like Alan Turing? Coincidence? I think not....

Now, now, now...you're simply being mean.

Alan Turing was a Damned Good Scientist who brought us such things as the Turing machine and (in greater or lesser form) modern computing. The poor fella also happened to be gay, which sorta freaked out the British security agencies; someone else has already posted the rather sad story of how they pumped him fulla hormones to the point he was looking transsexual rather than gay and thus scored an own goal by causing the poor guy to commit suicide.

Jeff Gordon, on the other hand, is (to quote the canonical term and definition by the great, late, lamented Bill Hicks) a Gutless, Soulless Sucker of Satan's Cock who will promo literally anything from bone-marrow transplantation (this one I can't fault him on) to Pepsi to little fundy groups who would love to turn the US into a theocracy (Jeff Gordon does book promos for the DeMoss Foundation, which bankrolls lots of Religious Reich groups; the head of the group is into "Christian Reconstructionism" [the canard that the Founding Fathers really wanted the US to be a fundy theocracy rather than a republic] and even bankrolls some Christian Identity [the canard that white people are the "real Israelites" and everyone else is "mud people" and those folks who have been speaking Hebrew and holding weekly Sabbath in synagogue for the past six thousand or so years are taking the piss of Jews] groups; more info here or here or even here).

In other words, Alan Turing was merely gay, whilst Jeffy Gordon is a Corporation Bottom; merely being gay is far preferable to suckin' Satan's pecker (suck it! It's only your dignity, Jeffy...suck it! It's only your dignity...suck it!). ;)

ObSlashdot: If anyone finds a source for the program in question, please let me know. ;) I'm aware that the History Channel often sells videocassettes of series; also, not everyone is in an area that gets the History Channel nor is everyone with cable to begin with (frankly, I don't have it because I do not feel like paying Intermedia Cable upwards of fifty bucks a month for digital cable--which is often so overloaded with multiple folks on the same line and with warez puppies running 0-day servers on their @Home accounts that the picture will freeze in blocks for five seconds at a time then clear, rather like how mini-dish satellite dishes will do in a really hard rain). At the very least I would think you could get them for educational purposes...