Slashdot Mirror

I submitted the same story an hour or two ago after seeing This AP story at.

I like netbuzz's story better than mine, because it sets up a classic fight: Digital vs. analog- which is better? The answer I gave in MFA was that each has strengths and weaknesses, but it's plain that analog/digital hybrids, like a digitally mastered vinyl record or a CD mastered from an analog tape, are the worst of both worlds, having the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.

My best sounding CDs are ones I made myself from vinyl, so the above paragraph isn't absolute; many CDs that are remastered from analog originals (Led Zepplin's Presence or Blue Öyster Cult's first album) have horrible remasters, making a digital sample of the vinyl album sound better than the remastered CD. Presence especially; my homemade CD has more dynamics, higher highs and lower lows. BOC sounds especially good in the car, that's what I play when I want to show off my car stereo.

After hearing some remastered albums I'm sure the RIAA's labels have hired deaf engineers, and wonder if the poor sods ever learned to read an oscilloscope? For you younger folks: any new vinyl album should be inferior to the CD, unless the master was sampled with a far higher sampling rate and bit size than Red Book. But compared to what they could do with a high speed analog tape with dolby, Red Book suX0rz. If my sample of Presence sounds better than the store-bough CD, imagine how good the actual vinyl sounds?

But anyway, happy birthday, CD!

-mcgrew

I agree with the post completely, but...

1. There is no such thing as "intellectual property" in the US. The very concept is unconstitutional. The "intellectual property" belongs to rthe people. All I, as the writer of this copyrighted comment own, is the publication rights to this comment, which expire after a "limited" time (with the word "limited" having been gutted by the US Supreme Court).

I do not own the songs I write, nor the stories, nor the software. I don't even own the Paxil Diaries. I only own a limited time monopoly on publication of that stuff (but not so limited that I won't be dead before my monopoly expires).

2. The artist doesn't own copyright to their recorded songs; US copyright law says the label owns the copyright, that the artist is just for hire.

This is, after all, the US. We have the best government Corporate Money can buy.

-mcgrew

PS- Yay, Ray!

women, in general, like men without facial hair

Hmmm... considering that facial hair is a secondary sexual characteristic, one of the major things that make men look different than women, exactly how does that work? Wouldn't a woman who likes bald faces be like a man who likes flat-chested women?

And how in the hell would you know about what women want, son? The truth is, MEN in general like WOMEN without facial hair.

The difference between a man's shave and a woman's radical mastectomy is that titties don't grow back. After my divorce I went three years without getting laid. Then I grew a goatee. And got rid of my broken glasses. Now I get laid! Well, once in a while... You can too if you follow a few simple rules.

If you're a feminine man with little to no facial hair, then yes, shave it off. But the only women who like a lack of facial hair are lesbians. If your wife tells you to shave, tell her if you catch her in bed with another women you get the other woman, too.

As to the lipstick, it fakes sexual interest: a human's lips get increased blood flow when the human is aroused. And women wear high heels because they're crowd-following masochists. Height is decidedly unfeminine, so women want tall men. The taller their heels make them the taller a man they can attract.

Ok, do I have to turn in my nerd license now?

-mcgrew

women, in general, like men without facial hair

Hmmm... considering that facial hair is a secondary sexual characteristic, one of the major things that make men look different than women, exactly how does that work? Wouldn't a woman who likes bald faces be like a man who likes flat-chested women?

And how in the hell would you know about what women want, son? The truth is, MEN in general like WOMEN without facial hair.

The difference between a man's shave and a woman's radical mastectomy is that titties don't grow back. After my divorce I went three years without getting laid. Then I grew a goatee. And got rid of my broken glasses. Now I get laid! Well, once in a while... You can too if you follow a few simple rules.

If you're a feminine man with little to no facial hair, then yes, shave it off. But the only women who like a lack of facial hair are lesbians. If your wife tells you to shave, tell her if you catch her in bed with another women you get the other woman, too.

As to the lipstick, it fakes sexual interest: a human's lips get increased blood flow when the human is aroused. And women wear high heels because they're crowd-following masochists. Height is decidedly unfeminine, so women want tall men. The taller their heels make them the taller a man they can attract.

Ok, do I have to turn in my nerd license now?

-mcgrew

Mod parent up!!!!! Two words: Bee Gees.

Disco is dead, YAY! Rap is disco for the new century. For every Led Zepplin there is an Elton John. I would have linked to the slashdot story where that pathetic old bastard said the internet was killing music (Elton John was killing it in the 70s) but slashdot's search feature doesn't seem to be able to find Elron John. How I wish that would extend to the radio!

An article I wrote three years ago about the birth of the first FM stereo rock radio station started with "In the 1960s radio sucked badly; even worse than it does today. There were no rock stations. The only rock and roll was played on the AM pop station, and sparingly, at that."

Mod parent up!

-mcgrew

When you mention Lawrence and computers, I think of this Story.

And they're not good thoughts.

A. For the blood sugar to stay balanced, it is crucial that spleen meridian be kept strong. This is done primarily by sedating triple warmer--which drains energy from spleen--and then by directly strengthening spleen. In Energy Medicine, you'll note that there are several ways to do this, and I'd have your daughter use every way possible since what is required with this illness is to literally retrain a deeply held energy habit in her body. To strengthen spleen meridian:

[list of exercises]

Changing the deep habit of a spleen/triple warmer imbalance will not only help keep her blood sugar in better balance, it can help create a new pattern of insulin production in her pancreas. The type of diabetes determines how much the illness can be turned around. If she was born without the ability to create insulin, she will probably always need to have it supplied externally, but even in that situation, the procedures described here will help her pancreas to function more optimally.

-Donna Eden on Diabetes

Eating less!

Yeah, but Card is an Asshat.

I realize that an ad hominem attack is useless, but hey, it's Global Warming! All guidelines for logic and reasonable discussion are null and void. Anyone who doesn't agree has an ulterior motive or is completely stupid. As Card says. As I say.

I'm just gonna live how I like, sit back and watch, and see where we're at in 2100.

UMG says that it wants to watch how DRM-free music affects piracy rates.

You would expect the truth from an industry that would infect your computer with a rootkit? That would sue elderly women for supposedly downloading rap music? That would sue twelve year olds and mentally handicapped people?

You would trust this sort of person to tell the truth? Want to buy a nice bridge in New York?

Piracy has nothing whatever to do with the labels' war against the internet. The "war against the internet" includes both P2P file sharing and internet radio, that latter which it has effectively killed and the former which it has injured badly.

P2P has been proven time and time again to promote music by every single study except the one industry paid for. Roger McGuinn (from the early 1960s rock band "The Byrds") said that his career was essentially over, the labels wanted nothing more to do with him and he was playing small bars and coffehouses for chump change when the old outlawed Napster revitalized his career.

This was a wakeup call for the RIAA labels, who then realized that if it could revitalize McGuinn's career, it could launch someone else's. McGuinn no longer needed the labels, and neither did anyone else.

"Piracy" has nothing to do with it. If I want the latest top 40 song; indeed, if I want all 40, all I have to do is plug my radio's headphone jack into my sound card's AUX IN jack with a two dollar cord from Radio Shack and tune the radio to any top-40 station. In two hours I'll have all 40 of the top 40.

If I want indie music I need P2P or internet radio. It's not about "piracy", it's about killing the competetion. It's about keeping McGuinn, other old musicians, and young unsigned bands out of your ears. The labels control teresstrial radio, but they don't and can't control the internet.

If you want to find my friends from The Station's song "The Fog" and search for it on P2P, you're likely to download Radiohead's completely different song of the same name and get sued by Radiohead's label for trying to find a song a completely different band made and wants you to hear.

The RIAA and its labels are evil. Don't listen to their lies, and stop listening to their music.

-mcgrew

If a non artistically inclined four year old can make it with a box of crayons, it should be public domain...

Overheard in an art museum: "My four year old can draw better than that!" Trademarks aren't awarded on the basis of how difficult a symbol is to render, but how original they are. Your four year old can put the letter "X" inside a circle inside a square, but if nobody has registered that as a trademark, then you can and it's protected.

One of my instructors at college (I was an art major) was fond of saying "I don't know what I like, but I know what art is."

You have no idea how incredibly stupid your remark is.

-mcgrew (same article without pictures but with comments from the public)

The "internet is dangerous!!!!" is like "We must give up our liberty because of teh terrorism!!!!" Do the math: less than 3,000 dead in America this century from Muslim terrorists, while there are half a million from heart attacks and another half million from cancer, and forty thousand from auto accidents every single year! I'd say that Homeland Security money would be better spent on a few guard rails, and maybe if we can outlaw smoking something that slows lung cancer we can outlaw something that causes it? Or at least legalize the one that slows it so the cigarette smokers can legally... oh hell, never mind. This is mainstream media, law and government we're talking about. Logic, reason, and sanity should have nothing to do with the debate.

Thank the Firehose. In case you're curious what Slashdot is turning into, here's the future. Get out before they open the fiction section.

10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:

Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives. It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated. We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE A ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR! THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AND ENEMY!

First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you. Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job, they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information this can be done through state run media. Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information. Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different. Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR. THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party. Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between. One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions. This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom." This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity. It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones. Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears. Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR! THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY!

We are not countries. We are not nations.(enemy) we are not religions. We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition. (enemy) we are not killers.We will NOT be tools.

Mother fuckers
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your wealth
I am not a fighter
I am a human being!!!

But, you know, a lot of times the best stuff comes from outsiders and I personally think that newspapers should develop a 'tech section' where they can throw off the mittens & grade school knowledge that need to be on in order to handle your average reader. I know many newspapers have entire sections devoted to sports--sometimes even just one particular sport if it's in season!

Oh man, I wish I had your optimism. But I'm a geezer, I'm beyond hope.

I personally think that newspapers should develop a 'tech section' where they can throw off the mittens & grade school knowledge that need to be on in order to handle your average reader.

Not me, I cringe every time I see the single weekly article by some so-called "tech guy" in a mainstream newspaper where someone (a non-nerd, obviously) says something like "my internet stopped working, what do I do?" and the answer starts with "first, open Internet Explorer. That's the program that lets you get on the internet"... GAH!!!! Someone will complain about viruses, does the guy ever mention Firefox? The fucktard doesn't seem to have ever HEARD of firefox, Linux, or OSS. Thankfully, the guy linked has retired. Hooray!

I know many newspapers have entire sections devoted to sports--sometimes even just one particular sport if it's in season!

That's because 48% of Americans (99% of males, probably not just Americans but men world-wide) are sometimes jocks and usually overweight wannabe jocks who love nothing better than to sit in front of the boob tube watching sports, memorizing meaningless statistics, and believing that it actually matters whether or not "their" team won the "big game" while not giving two shits or even knowing about warrantless wiretapping, limitless copyrights, the inability to make backups of DVDs they've bought, etc.

Sorry man (for me as well as for you) but it ain't gonna happen, not in my lifetime and not even in yours.

What we need is an article that causes people to seriously ask themselves how we can keep e-mail free and uncensored while at the same time stopping spam.

You're not going to see an article like that in the MSM or even in most so-called "tech" rags or sites. There are a lot of people who think they're geeks (Geek Squad anyone?) just because they own a computer!

So while this article is informational, it does nothing practical for the reader.

Informational for Aunt Gussie, not for you or me. And informing Aunt Gussie is practical.

the best way to stop spam is to stop clicking on it and show others how to do the same.

Ignorance is curable, but unfortunately stupidity is not. There are enough people who know better than to click on spam but are stupid enough to do it anyway. Hell, my oldest daughter is brain damaged with an IQ of 65 but even she is smart enough to not click on spam! But college professors do it anyway.

The situation is hopeless. If enough countries (esp. the US where most of the spam comes from) outlawed commercail unsolicited email with serious prison time for offenders, the spam problem would dry up... just like the "drug problem" has dried up.

It's hopeless.

=(

-mcgrew

Faggot. Go die while masturbating anally.

PHP sucks.

That your post would be modded "informative" on a tech site! I would have modded it "interesting" but NOBODY reading slashdot should be "informed" by this. We're supposed to be nerds, we're supposed to know how this stuff works.

Even though Congress doesn't.

You obviously know this (hooray that there is at least ONE nerd at "news for nerds, stuff that matters"), but for the rest of ths slashdot audience who thinks having a new copy of Vista makes you a nerd (mod me flamebait, Congressman!), the "V-Chip" in your TV works because broadcasters have to add codes to the programming.

There is no way that noncommercial content will be able to be covered by a V-chip, unless the chip keeps all noncommercial content off of the device! Hooray for the commercial content producers, their worst nightmare of user-produced content usurping their role as gatekeepers will be over!*

Want to send a clip of your girlfriend to Mom? Sorry mom, this stupid phone you gave me won't let me send or recieve any unauthorized content. MySpace? Well, MySpace will automaticelly be assigned a "TV-14" rating. Google? They'll play ball, with "safesearch" on the kid's searches will get a "G".

Meanwhile my site sill be kid-friendly, meaning NO FUCKING KIDS! Get off my damned lawn! And no you can't have your goddamn ball back! Slashdot? Hooray! No more goddamned fucking kids posting links to goatse! No more frosty piss! No more juvenile... what? Those are twenty seven year grad students from SIU? Crap!

-mcgrew

*It started with the old outlawed Napster. When the major labels found out that Joe Schmoe and the Nuze Bluze Band could get his songs heard without Clearchannel's help, they started suing. Piracy? That was just an excuse. If you want to hear the latest top-40 hit just turn on the radio. If you want a copy of it just plug your radio's headphone jack into your sound card. They aren't trying to keep "WTF Madonna" off your hard drive, they're trying to keep Joe Schmoe out of your ears.

The next threat to the commercial content producers was killing internet radio, because those damned punks kept playing indie music.

Now YouTube has them worried. It's ok though, you can bet they'll find a way to kill that, too. This new V-chip is just another gun in the war against user-produced content.

That your post would be modded "informative" on a tech site! I would have modded it "interesting" but NOBODY reading slashdot should be "informed" by this. We're supposed to be nerds, we're supposed to know how this stuff works.

Even though Congress doesn't.

You obviously know this (hooray that there is at least ONE nerd at "news for nerds, stuff that matters"), but for the rest of ths slashdot audience who thinks having a new copy of Vista makes you a nerd (mod me flamebait, Congressman!), the "V-Chip" in your TV works because broadcasters have to add codes to the programming.

There is no way that noncommercial content will be able to be covered by a V-chip, unless the chip keeps all noncommercial content off of the device! Hooray for the commercial content producers, their worst nightmare of user-produced content usurping their role as gatekeepers will be over!*

Want to send a clip of your girlfriend to Mom? Sorry mom, this stupid phone you gave me won't let me send or recieve any unauthorized content. MySpace? Well, MySpace will automaticelly be assigned a "TV-14" rating. Google? They'll play ball, with "safesearch" on the kid's searches will get a "G".

Meanwhile my site sill be kid-friendly, meaning NO FUCKING KIDS! Get off my damned lawn! And no you can't have your goddamn ball back! Slashdot? Hooray! No more goddamned fucking kids posting links to goatse! No more frosty piss! No more juvenile... what? Those are twenty seven year grad students from SIU? Crap!

-mcgrew

*It started with the old outlawed Napster. When the major labels found out that Joe Schmoe and the Nuze Bluze Band could get his songs heard without Clearchannel's help, they started suing. Piracy? That was just an excuse. If you want to hear the latest top-40 hit just turn on the radio. If you want a copy of it just plug your radio's headphone jack into your sound card. They aren't trying to keep "WTF Madonna" off your hard drive, they're trying to keep Joe Schmoe out of your ears.

The next threat to the commercial content producers was killing internet radio, because those damned punks kept playing indie music.

Now YouTube has them worried. It's ok though, you can bet they'll find a way to kill that, too. This new V-chip is just another gun in the war against user-produced content.

What you are talking about is Kuro5hin's edit queue, not Slahdot.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/9/5/172111/7190

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/723

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/9/5/172111/7190

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/723

"The internet has stopped people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff.

"Instead they sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but it doesn't bode well for long-term artistic vision."

"The internet has stopped people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff.

"Instead they sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but it doesn't bode well for long-term artistic vision."

Try creating music that people like

Amen. I'm a geezer, I was 17 in '69 (seventeen in sixty nine should have been a song title), and Elton John's pathetic hackwork came out shortly after I joined the Air Force.

Elton John is one reason I have hope for music in this century.

Because with one or two exceptions, the early seventies' music sucked decaying donkey balls and Elton John was among the apex of the suckage. We'd had rock and roll get loud and exciting with the likes of Blue Cheer, Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath... and then they stationed me in Delaware. Lots of radio from several high-population areas (Maryland, DC, etc) and what did I hear? Elton John, Jethro Tull (a flute player is supposed to be rock and roll????), all sorts of whiney, "please cry for me life's so sad" bullshit that made me want to puke ("There's a hole in daddy's arm where the money goes...").

I'd go back home to St. Louis on leave and KSHE was calling Lynard Skynard, Molly Hatchett, Allman Brothers, and others I would call country music that KSHE was calling "Real Rock Radio". I'd call it "country". But it was a hell of a lot better than Elton John or the Eagles!

But that musical dearth only lasted a few years, and we started hearing ZZ Top, Aerosmnith, Ted Nugent, Montrose (with Sammy Hagar) and the like. ROCK ON!

I was cheered and hopeful this century when I heard Buckcherry, but sadly they seem to be the only new major label band from this century that I could actually call "rock and roll". I'm in Springfield now, and "The Rock Station" here (WQLZ plays a mix of antique music (Zepplin, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Alice in Chains) and the 21st century garbage that is no more Rock than Elton John's pathetic bullshit.

The internet isn't killing music. Simon Cowell and Clear Channel are killing music. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own media outlets, and nobody shouold be able to own more than five broadcast outlets, period.

But I thank Elton John's shitty early '70s pap for giving me hope that things will improve.

-mcgrew

Try creating music that people like

Amen. I'm a geezer, I was 17 in '69 (seventeen in sixty nine should have been a song title), and Elton John's pathetic hackwork came out shortly after I joined the Air Force.

Elton John is one reason I have hope for music in this century.

Because with one or two exceptions, the early seventies' music sucked decaying donkey balls and Elton John was among the apex of the suckage. We'd had rock and roll get loud and exciting with the likes of Blue Cheer, Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath... and then they stationed me in Delaware. Lots of radio from several high-population areas (Maryland, DC, etc) and what did I hear? Elton John, Jethro Tull (a flute player is supposed to be rock and roll????), all sorts of whiney, "please cry for me life's so sad" bullshit that made me want to puke ("There's a hole in daddy's arm where the money goes...").

I'd go back home to St. Louis on leave and KSHE was calling Lynard Skynard, Molly Hatchett, Allman Brothers, and others I would call country music that KSHE was calling "Real Rock Radio". I'd call it "country". But it was a hell of a lot better than Elton John or the Eagles!

But that musical dearth only lasted a few years, and we started hearing ZZ Top, Aerosmnith, Ted Nugent, Montrose (with Sammy Hagar) and the like. ROCK ON!

I was cheered and hopeful this century when I heard Buckcherry, but sadly they seem to be the only new major label band from this century that I could actually call "rock and roll". I'm in Springfield now, and "The Rock Station" here (WQLZ plays a mix of antique music (Zepplin, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Alice in Chains) and the 21st century garbage that is no more Rock than Elton John's pathetic bullshit.

The internet isn't killing music. Simon Cowell and Clear Channel are killing music. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own media outlets, and nobody shouold be able to own more than five broadcast outlets, period.

But I thank Elton John's shitty early '70s pap for giving me hope that things will improve.

-mcgrew

Them wanting to keep the latest rap song off of P2P and internet radio is total crap. As Roger McGuinn of the early 60s band "the Byrds" said, the old illegal Napster revitalized his career.

The problem with internet radio and P2P is that the labels can't control it. They want to kill kazaa and bittorrent not because their stuff is on it, but because they can't keep indie stuff off of it like they can the radio.

Face it, if I want the latest pap from the RIAA labels all I have to do is plug my sound card into my radio and sample. I then have ALL the latest hits, at a better quality than the highest bitrate MP3.

They want internet radio and P2P dead because their competetion is on it. It's not about keeping their stuff off P2P, it's about the artists who have discovered that they can make their own CDs in a professional studio and have copies professionally duplicated and packeged for only a few thousand bucks (far cheaper than the labels would chargeback), and promote them via internet radio and P2P.

This is about killing the competition before it kills them, plain and simple.

-mcgrew (AKA "Three-eyes")

Them wanting to keep the latest rap song off of P2P and internet radio is total crap. As Roger McGuinn of the early 60s band "the Byrds" said, the old illegal Napster revitalized his career.

The problem with internet radio and P2P is that the labels can't control it. They want to kill kazaa and bittorrent not because their stuff is on it, but because they can't keep indie stuff off of it like they can the radio.

Face it, if I want the latest pap from the RIAA labels all I have to do is plug my sound card into my radio and sample. I then have ALL the latest hits, at a better quality than the highest bitrate MP3.

They want internet radio and P2P dead because their competetion is on it. It's not about keeping their stuff off P2P, it's about the artists who have discovered that they can make their own CDs in a professional studio and have copies professionally duplicated and packeged for only a few thousand bucks (far cheaper than the labels would chargeback), and promote them via internet radio and P2P.

This is about killing the competition before it kills them, plain and simple.

-mcgrew (AKA "Three-eyes")

Sideways slippage? WTF??? The first person to take a pratfall is going to be a bazillionaire. Seems to me that they would do better to make something that, oh, say, GEEZERS could walk on without falling down and breaking a hip. Like, I dunno, maybe have the damned things depress a quarter inch wnem stepped on? Something anyone who's ever walked on carpet can be comfortable with?

Who came up with this idea, Rube Goldberg? Get back to the drawing board, fellows, only this time stay away from the astronauts before you design the damned things.

-mcgrew (get off my lawn!)

You have to take your eyes off of the road to find the one button on the fifty buttons to turn the damned thing up or down. Thank God they invented cell phones so you can call an ambulance after you wreck your car trying to turn the volume down to answer your cell phone!

Attempting to 'out' another editor on Wikipedia is a bannable offense. Asking someone "Are you Xxxxx Yyyyy?" is an attempt at outing that person.

That said, I do think that since this case has hit Slashdot and the rumors are flying, there should be a lot of leniency here, and you should not have been banned. The question is out there and no one can stop it. And if everyone who asks this question gets banned, it just feeds the sense of conspiracy and wrongdoing.

It's a lot like the first Slashdot troll post investigation. Curious bystanders want to know what's going on, they try to participate, and get instantly and severely punished.

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!"

I've... been... watching... Star Trek... since, uh,... damn I'm so old I forgot how long I've been watching Star Trek. Yes, some of the movies sucked donkey balls and that last TV series REALLY sucked (I must have erased its memory from my brain, don't remember what it was called but I do remember it had a TERRIBLE theme song) but I'm really hoping I die of old age before it does.

You young folks seeing the original TV series see it as hokey, and yes, from the 21st century it IS hokey, but you have to remember that 1966 was an incredibly primitive era. Color TVs had round screens and cost a fortune, if you were in a large city you were lucky to have 4 channels, there were no VCRs, no DVDs, no microwave ovens, no automatically opening doors (pioneered as scifi by Star Trek), no flat screens (also pioneered by Star Trek), no communicators... er, cell phones (ditto), no tricord... uh, blackberries (ditto ditto), no seat belts in cars, no air bags in cars, no lots of stuff. Including CGI. For its time and budget, it was incredibly good.

Star trek was uber-cool to a young nerd. OTOH "Lost in space" was a fucking embarrasment that I watched all of ten minutes of. I hated it when they dragged its rotting corpse up for a movie sequel.

But Star Trek, I am so glad it has lived long and prospered.

-mcgrew

(linked story relevent to this post. Speaking of this post, slashdot is REALLY pissing me off. First I get the "lameness" filter because I used too many exclamation points, then I get a "slow down cowboy" because I posted 22 minutes ago. Gees!)

Who better to blame than some dumb (get off my lawn!) kid? We're all young and stupid at some point in our lives. There were times in my youth that I followed procedures by the book or (more usually) per instructions, had something screw up, and I got the blame.

On the bright side, he's an intern, meaning he's supposed to be in a learning situation. This will teach him not to trust his supervisors!

Of course, the blame ought to go to whoever stole the tapes in the first place. The only question that nags at me is why anyone would steal tapes? And I'm haunted by times I was supposed to change backup tapes at another (now closed) facility, and often left tapes in the car thinking nobody would have any use for them. Of course, ours were encrypted...

-mcgrew

I live in the land of the free....beaches.*

WTF: you paid to get on the beach $5 per day - Australia may suck big sweaty pendulous donkey balls, but at least we don't have to pay for our beaches.**

I lived in Florida for 5 years, most beaches in the US are free. There were none I knew of there where you had to pay. You have to remember, this is New Jersey they're talking about, the place New Yorkers call "the armpit of America", and nearly everyone I ever met from New York City was an asshole (there have been exceptions).

The US is the third largest country in the world in terms of land mass (source), over 3.7 million square miles (9.6 million km). Thhere's an ocean on each side of it. That's a hell of a lot of beach. Sun of a beach!

* Not so good as the land of the free biatches

They cost $20 here. Just find the skinniest woman in the sleaziest bar in town. Be sure to have a condom! If it weren't for crack whores, American nerds would never get laid!

** Please return to your scheduled why-noone-needs-wireless-on-the-beach flamefest.

Nobody is flaming about the wireles, we're flaming about Big Brother AKA "The Stalker". Funny, if I stalk you it's a felony, but the government can stalk anyone they want. So much for our vaunted Constitution, where the people are supposed to have power over government, rather than the other way around as it is today.

-mcgrew

Greenrd's Law.

Harry Potter is thinly-veiled homosexual propaganda, read all about it here http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/7/16/162353/730

Harry Potter is thinly-veiled homosexual propaganda, read all about it here http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/7/16/162353/730

"Do you think a suspected drunk driver gets a trial before his car is seized?"

Where do you live that this happens? I've never lived anywhere where someone picked up for suspected DWI gets his car 'seized'.

That's nothing, if they find reefer in your car they can not only seize it, they can sell the damned thing!

Our Constitution has been completely subverted past recognition. The government makes laws that the Constitution gives them no right to make, using the "interstate commerce" clause, even when no state line has been crossed in any way (e.g. medical marijuana in California that never leaves the state).

I wrote an article about this two years ago. The situation has gotten much, much worse since I wrote the article, and some of you goobers are cheering it on (the situation, not the article).

If the presence of Secret Police, KGB, or Gestapo makes a country a police state, I would ask what is the difference between "secret police" and "undercover agents" or even "plainclothesmen"? The USA is a police state. Our secret police should be abolished, all victimless "crime" laws (drugs, prostitution, gambling) should be repealed, and most of our legislators should be impeached and tried for treason.

This past month or so's personal experiences have cemented this opinion in my brain. I will no longer feel free in my native land.

On Memorial day weekend an old girlfriend looked me up about midnight. My daughter was in town, and when she got home she woke me up saying a strange woman was on the porch swing who said she knew me. I'd run across her in a bar (where else would a nerd find a girl friend?) and her live in boyfriend who hates my guts (with great reason; I'd been fucking his girlfriend last summer after all) locked her out of the house.

Long "Paxil Diary" type story short, the cops came knocking on the back door looking for a strange woman who frightened my elderly neighbors across the street (she must surely have looked the witch with the broom she was carrying, see #2 in the linked journal) banging on doors drunkenly trying to find my house. The cops called the boyfriend who said the screen door was locked by accident. They would give her a ride home.

"We'll close the fence gate", one cop told me, "and your garage door."

"Oh shit," I exclaimed, "my lawnmower!!"

"It's ok," the cop said, "your lawnmower is ok, we opened the door and went inside looking for her."

So much for the fourth amendment on the weekend we celebrate those who died defending our Constitutional rights.

Then two weeks ago I gave a ride to two female friends who said they needed to collect a debt owed them. I waited in the car for them. They came out and got in the car, and said "ok, let's go." Before I got the car in gear a big black Chevy SUV cut me off and a bunch of big scary guys jumped out brandishing lethal and non-lethal weapons. They wore big signs on their shirts; POLICE, FBI, and a guy wearing a ski mask (in summertime in Illinois in 90 degree F heat) with one that read "DEA".

I was frisked (it's no fun having some asshole grab your balls, at least if you're not gay) and my car was searched. The ladies were dressed skimpily enough that no search of them was required (when one of them almost flashed one cop they desisted, I shit you not!). They searched my car, and questioned me. "Did you know these girls smoke crack?" Well, they are awful thin but I'm turned on by skinny girls. "They are?" I said.

"Did you know this was a crack house?"

Shit. But nobody had anything illegal and they let us all go without arresting anybody. But my person was searched (and I felt like I'd been raped, what with that possibly gay cop putting his hand on my ass and balls) and my property was searched, all without a warrant of any kind. If the place really was a crack house

Yes, privacy is very important -- unless you are dead, that is.

Well, when I'm dead I'll stop worrying about my privacy. Note I didn't say "IF" I die. The fact of the matter is that you will die. And the odds aren't that bad you'll die tomorrow; my friend's mother just passed away the other night, from cancer. She was only a year older than me.

In this entire century, there were fewer than 3,000 deaths by terrorists on American soil. In 2005 (the most recent year with data) there were 16,692 Murders and nonnegligent manslaughters. Meanwhile, in 2005 (again the last year the gov has published data for, there were 39,189 motor vehicle crash fatalities - twice the number of homicides.

You are twice as likely to die from some nitwit in an SUV yakking on her cell phone while adjusting the volume on the stereo than to die from a murderer. And if you are indeed murdered, the most likely suspect is your spouse. Meanwhile, in Illinois alone, 62,010 people have died from cancer so far this year! (PDF). Stroke killed 275,000 people in 2002 and accounted for about 1 of 16 deaths in the United States. And fully half a million people die each year from heart attacks.

Your fear of terrorists and criminals is sadly misguided. The terrorists and criminals you should be afraid of are the ones who manufacture cigarettes and trans-fat based oils, and the criminal terrorists who sell you food cooked in this garbage. Unfortunately no amount of government power is going to stop THEM; they OWN the government.

You are a chump. You have been brainwashed. I feel very sorry for you and the millions of cowardly brainwashed fucktards like you who would willingly give up their privacy and freedom for an illusion of safety.

-mcgrew (the K5 articles are mine BTW)

Yes, privacy is very important -- unless you are dead, that is.

Well, when I'm dead I'll stop worrying about my privacy. Note I didn't say "IF" I die. The fact of the matter is that you will die. And the odds aren't that bad you'll die tomorrow; my friend's mother just passed away the other night, from cancer. She was only a year older than me.

In this entire century, there were fewer than 3,000 deaths by terrorists on American soil. In 2005 (the most recent year with data) there were 16,692 Murders and nonnegligent manslaughters. Meanwhile, in 2005 (again the last year the gov has published data for, there were 39,189 motor vehicle crash fatalities - twice the number of homicides.

You are twice as likely to die from some nitwit in an SUV yakking on her cell phone while adjusting the volume on the stereo than to die from a murderer. And if you are indeed murdered, the most likely suspect is your spouse. Meanwhile, in Illinois alone, 62,010 people have died from cancer so far this year! (PDF). Stroke killed 275,000 people in 2002 and accounted for about 1 of 16 deaths in the United States. And fully half a million people die each year from heart attacks.

Your fear of terrorists and criminals is sadly misguided. The terrorists and criminals you should be afraid of are the ones who manufacture cigarettes and trans-fat based oils, and the criminal terrorists who sell you food cooked in this garbage. Unfortunately no amount of government power is going to stop THEM; they OWN the government.

You are a chump. You have been brainwashed. I feel very sorry for you and the millions of cowardly brainwashed fucktards like you who would willingly give up their privacy and freedom for an illusion of safety.

-mcgrew (the K5 articles are mine BTW)

.... because they don't have GPS. I tried to swap my LG-VX1 for an LG-VX10 I got from my mother, and they wouldn't let me because it doesn't have e-911/GPS (where your phone can give its location to a 911 operator).

diary here - iirc, it was earlier that summer (2005) that the ruling came down from the FCC.

By gndn in Op-Ed The story is about a boy who lives in a cupboard (i.e. "in the closet"). His Aunt and Uncle are ashamed of him because his parents were quite eccentric (i.e. "flaming") and they are deeply concerned and afraid that he will turn out just like them. On his 11th birthday (i.e. roughly at the onset of puberty), the boy discovers that he is actually a "wizard", different in both style and substance from normal people, or "muggles" (i.e. "breeders"). The boy is groomed into his new existence by a large, hairy bear of a man who shows Harry a hidden underground community of "wizards" living right under the noses of the general population (i.e. the gay subculture). Harry's first trip to this subculture involves traveling through "Diagon Alley", a play on the word diagonally (i.e. not straight). One of Harry's first rites of passage in his new life is to select a wand (i.e. penis). The wand/penis is the most important tool in a Wizard's arsenal (or arse) and so this scene is treated with great reverence and mystery. While experiencing Diagon Alley for the first time, Harry also pauses with a group of other young boys to admire a much coveted broomstick (i.e. long hard shaft of wood). Harry's indoctrination begins in earnest when he is sent to a special school who purpose is to train him to use his wizard powers safely, while still being able to live in a world full of muggles. Young students at this school are forbidden from practicing "magic" (i.e. homosexuality) outside of the school (this is the so-called "restriction on the use of underage magic"). They are also forbidden from using magic in the presence of muggles, who might be frightened or angered by witnessing it, an obvious and heavy handed commentary on gay-straight societal tension. The students at this school are segregated by gender, a clear attempt to encourage homosexual relationships. The most popular pastime at the school is a game called "Quidditch", which involves riding hard shafts of wood, handling several types of balls, and trying to score points by successfully penetrating the hoop. This activity is enthusiastically endorsed by school officials for obvious reasons. Harry quickly excels at this new game and quickly becomes known for his above-average broom handling. Harry spends a great deal of time with Hagrid, the man-bear who first initiated him into the wizarding world, but also forms a close friendship with Ron, a fellow student (and first real boyfriend). The two also tolerate the presence of Hermione, a female classmate who compensates for her lack of a penis by being a better than average student. Together, this troublemaking threesome get into mischief on numerous occasions, causing consternation and concern among the teachers. Ultimately, the story is about Harry coming to terms with the tragic and premature death of his gay parents, who both died from AIDS (personified in the story by a cliche evil villain named Lord Voldemort). Although both his parents were struck down by the horrible disease, Harry himself was spared (though it did leave him scarred for life, i.e. infected with HIV but not full blown AIDS). Harry desperately searches for a new father figure to fill the void (either figuratively or literally) left by his father's absence. Harry first clings on to Hagrid the man-bear, then later Dumbledore, a kind but haggard old pedophile, and finally clutches on to Sirius Black, an old friend of his father's and Harry's godfather. Sirius has the curious ability to transform into a wild dog (i.e. he is an aggressive top). Harry's father had the ability to transform into a horse (a sly reference to penis size, lol horsecock). Harry himself has the ability to communicate with snakes (i.e. a deep understanding and appreciation of penises). Harry is further traumatized when one of his classmates, Cedric, is also cruelly cut down by Lord AIDSmort. Harry attempts to warn the others that "Voldemort has returned" (i.e. AIDS is on

Sure there is. If you trust this site..
(@ the leaked win2k code)
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795

I still don't see why the Slashdot crowd cares one way or the other about the length of copyright terms

Because most of us produce creative resources of one sort or another. There are an awful lot of computer programmers here, for instance, and every one of those programs is protected by copyright. I've registered two of them and have ISBNs. One program is now technologically obsolete (the computer in question hasn't been manufactured for twenty five years now) and I've posted the other one on the internet. Yes, I'm now giving it away, and so long as I get credit and you don't make profit on it (lets be fair here) you can have a copy.

Many of us also write articles, short stories and blogs, etc. Creativity is one hallmark of the nerd, after all.

We are concerned by copyright length because creation cannot be done in a vaccuum. As Bernard of Chartres and Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I see farther than most men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Every creative work draws on the works that came before it, and with perpetual copyrights there can be no further creation by anyone not employed by the multinational corporations who hold all the world's intellectual "property".

-mcgrew

I still don't see why the Slashdot crowd cares one way or the other about the length of copyright terms

Because most of us produce creative resources of one sort or another. There are an awful lot of computer programmers here, for instance, and every one of those programs is protected by copyright. I've registered two of them and have ISBNs. One program is now technologically obsolete (the computer in question hasn't been manufactured for twenty five years now) and I've posted the other one on the internet. Yes, I'm now giving it away, and so long as I get credit and you don't make profit on it (lets be fair here) you can have a copy.

Many of us also write articles, short stories and blogs, etc. Creativity is one hallmark of the nerd, after all.

We are concerned by copyright length because creation cannot be done in a vaccuum. As Bernard of Chartres and Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I see farther than most men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Every creative work draws on the works that came before it, and with perpetual copyrights there can be no further creation by anyone not employed by the multinational corporations who hold all the world's intellectual "property".

-mcgrew

So, you don't trust this company enough to give them your email address but you trust them enough to run one of their programs that you don't have the source to and have no idea what it really does?

If they're spammers the program is probably a trojan, donchathink?

Oh, right, it's not your computer, it belongs to your employer. Gocha...

-mcgrew

Usually his stuff is informitave, even valuable, but Neilson's off his rocker with this one. "Blog" is a contraction of "web log". Whether it's a well thought out, long, expletitive laden rant, a short opinion piece attached to a slashdot story or an informative article it's still a damned web log; a log (written piece) posted on the web. Is This Chicago Tribune editorial by Trib staffer Eric Zorn a blog? Of course it is! It's opinion, it's on the web, it even has comments attached (unlike my own now-defunct log). But this guy is a real journalist, unlike me, who studied journalism in school, also unlike me. He even has editors and proofreaders, unlike me. But It's a blog, even though it's posted in the dead tree Tribune as well as the 'net. Nielson got this one 100% wrong.

-mcgrew (like you couldn't guess...)

OMFG!!!!

I was addicted to that God damned drug for thirty fucking years. Yes, it indeed "acts on the acetylcholine receptors in the brain, stimulating and regulating the release of a slew of brain chemicals, including seratonin, dopamine and norepinephrine". Why in the hell do you think it's so God damned addictive???? Why do you think a smoker lights up when he's agitated, depressed, needs to think?

It's the absolute WORSE drug there is! Let me tell you exactly HOW addictive Satan's favorite leash is.

I spent August 1973 to August 1974 stationed in Thailand while in the USAF. They had 99% pure heroin there; SMOKEABLE heroin. It was to the heroin American junkies shoot up as crack is to the cocaine coke addicts snort and shoot. Most white first termers smoked the killer Thai stick (reefer), most black first termers smoked the heroin, and most lifers drank themselves into a stupor.

The heroin was ingested by taking a Kool cigarette and letting half the tobacco out, removing the filter, splitting it in half and reinserting it, then dipping the tobacco end into the heroin vial before lighting it. They would often pass it around like a joint. Many young men, having never before smoked anything in their lives, picked up the habit of smoking "rails", as the heroin cigarettes were called.

I met a few of these guys back in the states after coming home. Not one of them was on heroin, but every single one of them still smoked the Kools!

Take what you want of that story, but it sure looked to me like cigarettes are more addictive than heroin. Considering the fact that giving up cigarettes was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, I believe it.

If a doctor ever prescribes a drug based on niccotine to me, I'll find another doctor.

Meanwhile, marijuana can be habituating but is NOT chemically addictive, has no known toxic dose, and may actually prevent cancer!. So why are cigarettes legal while reefer isn't?

-mcgrew