Slashdot Mirror
Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism. Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work. You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration. The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted. The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
He knows the opposition's position as well as his so he can counter it up front. If he can't put himself in the opposition's shoes and argue against them, then they're going to suck.
These guys argued the other side forever, they *should* know how to tear that apart now.
Can someone mod those lawyers up? +1 insightful.
paul reinheimer
I know it isn't likely, but I would love to see this evolve into a situation where I could time shift my MythTV recordings with other users over BitTorrent.
coffee | nose > keyboard
For every time the gov deals with external reality, there are 100s of instances of decisions and actions based on some ideology or political interest.
This is why big government inevitably produces a low economic growth rate, eventually leading to the collapse of the society.
The only limit to the growth of gov is that collapse of the economic-social-political system.
Now if they can only come around on Warrantless Wiretapping.
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
You think that this is anything other then tactical deception? Seriously. You're not nearly cynical enough. The Obama government, just like the Bush government, was all about control. It's a nice brief, but it doesn't change anything about the new thugs, just like the old thugs.
It's nice to see things happening the way they are meant to happen. While the DoJ employees are not elected by the people, they are appointed by people who are. They are, in theory, supposed to represent the will and needs of the people, not corporations or lobbyists with money. Hopefully this will open up the debate about rewriting copyright and property laws in the age of information and the internet.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
"since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ."
Sometimes people just need a reminder that there is no grouping of people with less principles than Lawyers. We made the assumption that, since RIAA lawyers were hired to the DOJ, that they would find in favor of the RIAA. But it seems that lawyers are almost always megaphones for who is signing their paycheck.
And in this situation, it worked out in our favor.
They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer. Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)
Qxe4
...is right twice a day. Despite the common belief that the US government is way beyond screwed up, occasionally there is an outbreak of common sense. (Once you stop laughing about the words 'common sense' and 'government' in the same sentence, you can mod me up.)
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
NewYorkCountryLawyer said:
Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism.
It's way too early on a Sunday morning and/or afternoon for me to ponder and/or grok the in and/or out of the and/or in that sentence.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
So far, at least on the surface, Obama is mostly keeping his hands off the DoJ and letting them do their thing independently. Perhaps it is a misperception on my part. And Obama seems to be at least trying to be his own president. It seems pretty obvious that he has capitulated on quite a few important issues and hasn't had quite the smooth ride he might have expected, but I don't think Obama cares much about the whole copyright thing right now.
Hint: if they win the case, then copyright gets less broken. Cases like this help establish the boundaries of copyright law and the legal limits to the abilities of the rights-holders. Unless, of course, you're one of the "hurp copyright is always bad pirating is gud give me everything for freee!111111" mouthbreathers, in which case you can fuck right off.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
It sounds like the argument is consistent with the Betamax decision. This is essentially a VCR as a service rather than a product. I have no idea why it matters that storage is in RAM. There are systems that have stored data in RAM for years.
If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism.
Yeah right. Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion. You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot...
PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment. But THIS bit is actually sarcasm.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Just curious why you feel it's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the "sidebar" I could care less about.
Here's a direct link to the PDF:
http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/cartoonnetwork_csc_090500AmicusCuriaeBriefOfUS.pdf
I was initially skeptical about the alleged, lauded virtue of Barrack Obama, but the more I see of his actions, the more I'm forced to concede that I was wrong, and that in this case, water genuinely has flowed uphill, to use that analogy.
Obama's level of integrity is genuinely intimidating, for the simple reason that an American President is, at this point in history, expected to be a thoroughly amoral and corrupt human being. That he isn't, is rightfully seen almost as a violation of physical law. Bush's degree of evil had almost become reassuring, purely because of its' level of routine familiarity. When he attempted to do something monstrous, it was entirely expected.
Even with Bush aside, it is also a paradox when considered in light of the dynamics of political power in general. Reading Machiavelli and virtually every other treatise on the subject, one is left with the overwhelming conclusion that the single greatest prerequisite of political power is amorality, to the extent that it can be said that an individual's degree of political power will be directly proportional to their level of amorality.
Given this, Dick Cheney is perhaps a more likely example of who we would ordinarily expect to hold the office of President, morally speaking, than Obama. Cheney is, according to virtually every depiction of him, a consciously, willingly, and indeed enthusiastically evil individual. He is, therefore, far more consistent, both from study of political theory in general, and observation of American political history in particular, with the type of individual who I would expect to hold the office of the Presidency.
It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's comparitive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.
It will be fascinating to observe just how far outside of the established, conventional rules Obama is permitted to go.
I find it interesting that our Supreme Court Nominee was not part of this ruling. In fact, the 2nd circuit is making a lot of important rulings - they also established legal precedent in the Google Adwords trademark violation case, and some stuff about trademarks and internet before that. But I don't see her opinion on -any- of them. Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is?
This is my sig.
But you'd be a fool not to play the scam like everybody else. The rational choice for a person was to treat their home like an ATM, after it was a "sure bet" and if they didn't, they would regret it. Even if they knew it was a scam, they figured if they got screwed everybody was screwed so why not play?
In other words, good regulation can keep a bunch of individuals who are making rational decisions from screwing up the entire system. Sometimes what is right for one person is harmful to the whole. The lending crisis is an example of that.
The Supreme Court was thinking about overturning an important and just ruling but decided to just maintain the status quo. Oooooh, I suddenly feel so optimistic.
Ahhhh the cry of the greedy info-hoarders... You take your damn copyright back to the Green Line(18 years), and then we'll talk. For the law to receive any respect, it must be respectable. Until then YOU can fuck right off. The "rights" holders(hoarders) are the pirates who steal from the public. Welp, like I said you must draw back to your original borders, or you won't have a moment's peace.
We want cases like this to lose to set an example kind of like we want to implement Stalinist communism so that everyone will feel the pain of it and fight against it.
you are an idiot
We should be experimenting on how minimal we can make a gov, not how large and intrusive our system can endure.
Minimal gov will not produce a perfect society, but we engineers have given up on the idea of perfect systems, haven't we? We always have to make tradeoffs: cost, features, speed, bug-rate, etc. We can't avoid the limitations that the natural world imposes on us, no designed system can.
Minimal gov will produce a lot of failures, many obvious injustices. However, they will generally be small failures, small injustices, not the mega-disasters produced by govs, e.g. here in the US, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and all of the various "Wars on X" which have produced very intrusive, large gov.
We can all learn from small problems, adjust our decisions about how to live a good life. Mega-gov prevents all of that.
I think it is fairly obvious what approach the Obama DoJ is going to take. In return for coming down hard on those that distribute pirated content (it is indeed a crime, if not one that deserves much punishment), the DoJ is going to make sure it is only going after actual pirates instead of consumers trying to use content they have already paid for.
While this is not an ideal situation (there are a LOT of things the DoJ could be doing other than chasing after torrent trackers), it's better the previous situation, where the xxAA gets whatever they ask for.
SirWired
I RTF Brief. It was a good read. There is one issue that was mentioned and claimed to be explored, but I don't understand the reasoning.
In the last paragraph of discussion B.3.A and in foot note 10, on page 19, they say that the customer is the only one that makes the copy through RS-DVR, with some help from the respondents (the cable company). In fact, through out the brief, it is emphasized that who makes the copy is very important, and in this case it is always the customer that does.
But, this paragraph and foot note strikes me. It says that it is possible that two parties at once both be the "who" and who makes a copy. Like "if one person selects the programs or documents to be copied, but hires someone else to push the buttons used to operate the relevant copying machine, it is possible that both could be held liable as direct infringes for any copyright violations that their conduct entails." The brief argues that this doesn't happen; the customer makes the selection and pushes the button.
Why is pushing the button important? If a customer makes a selection but no button is pushed, then nothing has happened. If a company pushes a button but no selection was made before then, then again nothing happens. The customer is always the one that makes the selection; pushing a button is the extension of that selection. Hmm, maybe it is important, actually.
But, in the case of RS-DVR, the company is pushing some buttons of several kinds. The customer can make a decision, then press a button on their remote. This button press is sent to the RS-DVR server at the company's location, and the server presses it's own internal buttons to set the recording time and channel, and then presses some more when the right time comes. If these internal server buttons were not pressed, then nothing would happen. To me, they look just as important to the process as the remote control.
Hmm, maybe the server's internal buttons usage are considered a service, while the remote control's buttons usage is not?
I think the only thing that's clear here is that I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of law to figure it out conclusively myself.
Read Glen Greenwald at Salon.
Summary is that Obama's DOJ has largely followed Bush's policies, indeed has pushed the secrecy defense of gov actions far beyond anything that Bush's DOJ claimed.
Obama' has NOT repealed ANY of Bush's laws extending the power of gov to wiretap, spy, make the telcos immune to prosecution, etc.
Obama's DOJ has NOT pursued the crimes relating to torture, which is required by international treaty.
". This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration."
Didn't MDY lose on a decision recently regarding this? They were found to be infringing copyright because the game was loaded into RAM, which was considered a "copy" of the game, and MDY's wowglider program was modifying it (or something like that). So isn't this this opposite?
-AC
This way the ruling is limited to the Second Court of Appeals district only, and can be re-litigated in more friendly climes - like the Ninth Circuit Court, or Marshall, TX. If the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court then this ruling would hold throughout the country. Why else tell the Supreme Court that "This isn't important enough for you to bother with. Leave it to the other cable companies in the other areas of the country to work this all out."
After all, when have we seen the MPAA/RIAA litigation machine go away after only one defeat? Also, when have we seen them go in for the big one - besides Grokster, that is?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Ha ha!
Unless, of course, you're one of the "hurp copyright is always bad pirating is gud give me everything for freee!111111" mouthbreathers, in which case you can fuck right off.
Heh. Sounds like you're one of the "hurp everyone who disagrees with copyright is dumb la la la can't hear their arguments nope I bet they just want everything for free!111111" mouthbreathers.
Try actually reading some of the reasoned anti-copyright posts on here sometime. You might learn something.
Am I the only one having issues reading this page in Firefox? None of the reply subheadings are showing properly. Posting AC just in case I'm making a really dumb mistake which is causing this issue.
Seems like Obama's blatantly retarded cabinet appointments weren't so retarded after all. Hopefully he knew that these people would go against the industry that they have been representing, and hopefully he didn't appoint them because he thought they would help to bring along the policies that the industry has been fighting for. I'm really interested to see what the Administration does in the future, though... hopefully they can make a trend out of this.
Hint: if they win the case, then copyright gets less broken.
I'd rather not have to wait another 80 years for it to get "less broken" a bit at a time.
The changes we need have to come from the top down.
Now back Sound Financial Advice(tm), with Eboneeger Jewbaitberg
Education
Mobility of people educated on one state's dime to another state where labor is needed makes education an interstate matter. I believe the problem is called "brain drain".
intrastate agriculture
Is agriculture really intrastate? That is, is there a major fertilizer company based in each state that practices agriculture?
health care
Medications, devices, and skilled labor routinely cross state lines.
work regulations
For someone who lives on one side of a state line and works on the other, which state has authority to tax income?
I wish I had mod points. This weak minded PC world of moral relativism must be abolished. Copyright holders demand to be taken seriously and insist others listen to their arguments. I DONT NEED TO, your arguments are worthless because the position you already occupy is outrageous. The stated intent of the law was to promote innovation. Being able to profit from one work for a life time does not do that, it eliminates the need for innovation almost entirely.
Return to the bright bright line and we can have an intelligent discussion listen to each other and hash out the specifics, till then I am for damaging the strength of copyright law in any possible way, including making completely impossible to enforce on a technical level such that everyone is a violator and the entire concept becomes a sad joke. Chances are that we can't come back from that point, which does not bother people like me much so maybe you pro IP types aught to think about giving us some concessions because there are more of us and eventually we will defeat you; yes some of us are willing to whip others into what amounts to an unruly mod to do that.
A power struggle is an awful hard fight to win, once one side has excepted anarchy as satisfactory outcome, and a large enough group of people start to fell that would be preferable to your continued control; that is whats happening slowing in the world of IP. "Information wants to be free," is catching on.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Ah I love the smell of panicking conservative dickhead in the morning. It smells like Victory.
I enjoy the rampant paranoia of posts like this.
Of course they really voted for Obama because they learned the lesson that Republicans are usueless in govt.
But keep trying to put your racial spin on it, i for one enjoy your paranoid delusions.
I have no need to hide behind the AC mask. Whoever spreads this trash are pretty desperate. OF COURSE some blacks voted for Obama, just because he's black. It's no different than all the white people who voted against him just because he's black. I happen to be non-black. I'm a veteran, for that and some other reasons, I really WANTED to vote for McCain. So - why didn't I? Well - McCain was far more likely to get my SONS killed than Obama. McCain wouldn't have exactly followed in Bush's steps, but he would have followed closely enough that it wouldn't have made a tremendous difference. Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white? Not much. I voted for him because he understands more about world culture than McCain ever did, or will. The man has lived in places that McCain just flew over in a fighter jet. Tremendously different perspective. The black guy can relate to the world, whereas McCain used the world as a background on which to acquire targets. McCain may not be a pure neocon, but he does believe in much of the agenda of the New American Century. It is McCain's mission to spread corporate control around the world, supposedly for the benefit of Americans, but really for the benefit of those wealthiest 2% of Americans who already have more money than they can ever spend.
With one son in the Army, and one son in the Navy, I really feared for their lives with Bush in control. Obama may or may not commit to some action which puts their lives in peril - but I'm fairly confident that the purpose of that action WILL NOT BE to enrich our wealthiest 2%. That is exactly what Iraq accomplished, with the neocons in charge.
While you bitch and belly ache about the "nigger" in the White House, I breathe a sigh of relief. My own funny looking kids (sans the nappy heads) are far more likely to live long enough to give me some grandchildren to play with.
Bottom line? Fuck off, you cretinous redneck!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
When Obama was elected, one of the things that was most apparent was his understanding of technology and related issues. When he appointed the ??AA lawyers to the DOJ, there was a large outcry from people who believed he was being influenced by his party's traditional media kowtowing.
The specific lawyers who represented the RIAA and MPAA, and are now in the DOJ, are recused for two years from working on any of these types of matters. So they are not supposed to have had anything whatsoever to do with this brief. And from all appearances they did not
I'm wondering if the ??AA lawyer appointments weren't designed to "take them out of the game". If so, it's a brilliant move, IMHO. :)
> It's entirely possible that people working for President Carter are still employed at the DOJ and remained employed under different presidents and parties.
Carter? Bernard Hollander has been serving since Truman.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422506252
I suppose he could have retired or died in the past year, but even if so, the number 2 man is only 2 years behind, and he might still be a work.
... you cretinous redneck!!
This word apparently means something different to you than it does to me. Not easy to find digital sources for this, but, from a GlobalSecurity.org article:
That's from the Battle of Blair Mountain, where those "rednecks" fought thugs--and some died--for the right to unionize.
Not saying I'm going to write a curse-laden response to you, but... heads up.
General use of the word in the United States refers to unsophisticate, uneducated, unruly, generally racist backwoods people, possibly inbred for generations. There are so many connotations, I couldn't possibly do the term justice.
The wiki has a decent rundown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck From it's earliest use in reference to Americans, it was derogatory.
For more info, just google Southern American redneck You'll find tons of redneck humor among the results.
I might be considered a redneck by geography/accent (grew up in Louisiana and Texas), but I completely support everything you said. Good job.
Cretinous was the only insult in that comment.
General use of the word in the United States refers to unsophisticate, uneducated, unruly, generally racist backwoods people, possibly inbred for generations. There are so many connotations, I couldn't possibly do the term justice.
The wiki has a decent rundown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck From it's earliest use in reference to Americans, it was derogatory.
For more info, just google Southern American redneck You'll find tons of redneck humor among the results.
Doesn't excuse the blind vitriol, though. I can make a list of nasty and ignorant phrases that, if directed toward another person here, would have people recoiling in horror, or lashing out in rage (typically phrases that many AC posts consist of--no offense). But "redneck," when used in an equally hateful way, is okay--and that's not really right.
I'm not posting demanding an apology, or such. I'm just wanting to share that these groups may find such usage of the word a little offensive, or pointlessly hateful.
It's astounding to me that someone would make the argument that a black man was elected *because of*, rather than in spite of, racism.
It is the neolibs that post those stupid posts and you just eat it up because it fits so perfectly with what the media have told you a conservative is.
Those posts are solely designed to taint the character of the people that do not support their ideology.
It is so blatant that I cannot believe so many slashdotters fall for it.
These posts do not contain any kind of conservative message, just racial hatred. (And to anticipate the response - racial hatred is not conservatism.)
Honestly, if these "redneck conservatives" are passionate enough to sit by their computers all day and post this garbage, why would they post anonymously? Do you really think someone filled with this much hatred would be afraid of someone seeing their made up username?
But "redneck," when used in an equally hateful way, is okay--and that's not really right.
Redneck isn't so bad. It means your neck is red from working out in the sun all day, like you should be doing. Honky? That's a stupid name. I'm not really felling anything here. If you want to piss off a white dude, don't use it. Cracker? That's a favorite of black comedians and so it's a bit trite. It's probably the closest that comes to being offensive. It comes from "whip crackin'" on the slaves. But there are about as many whip crackers alive today as there are former slaves--so it's anachronistic at best.
But I'll tell you what really can irritate a white dude more than names. It's that anger at white people. Until I moved to LA, I've never seen anything like it. I think it's anger at "the man." I feel it worst from bus drivers. But they really shouldn't exude that anger because if they were to stop and think about it for a minute, they'd realize that *THE MAN* DOESN'T RIDE THE BUS!
Just callin' it like I see it.
I see, let me get this straight. Your sons, joined the Army and Navy to cruise around and walk around with guns and not get involved in any possible fighting, so like a 4 year vacation. Your a jerk that if its true you have two sons who by their own free will joined the armed (get that armed) services to serve, which just might mean fighting in a war with or without your permission. I didn't vote for Obama, not because of his race, but because of his policies and liberalism. You sir, are a bigoted racist who has not a clue as to why we have a armed services. Dont call me a redneck you liberal who I doubt has any sons or ever served in the armed services.
Wait a minute...
Following your logic, if black voters had voted for Obama on the basis of policy etc, then only 65% would have voted for him, as happened in the hispanic & asian demographics.
Um, maybe I'm missing something, but if we assume Obama gets 65% of votes *across the board*, then surely that means he wins the election?
Oh, wait. You're figuring that white voters vote vastly in favour of McCain. "Purely on policy grounds", naturally.
Dude, if it's racist for 95% of blacks to vote *for* Obama, then it's racist for more than 35% of whites to vote *against* him, by your figures.
Unless you're willing to admit that maybe, perhaps, different ethnic groups within the US might have different policy interests, due to different demographics such as wealth, education, employment, etc etc.
This is a horribly broken system slightly fixing itself. It's the government that created the unnatural monopoly of copyright and granted copyright holders such tremendous powers to slow innovation simply by suing. In the end, the fact that Cablevision decided not to settle but, rather, to spend millions of dollars to fight this is not the system "working"--it's practically a miracle. So, no, NewYorkCountryLawyer, you have not instilled an ounce of scepticism about my own distrust of government. You have only increased my distrust and strengthened my support for competition and free markets. The skewed way non-libertarians view the world never ceases to amaze me.
Erm...you just said what I just said only more ranty.
Except for the "not Obama" part. Obama definitely plays a part, whether you and he realize it or not. (Though how could you not? I mean, he's in the Political Party...)
Your brain is not a computer.
"Network-based technologies for copying and replaying television programming raise potentially significant questions, but this case does not provide a suitable occasion for this Court to address them. The Second Circuit is the first appellate court to consider the copyright implications of network-based analogues to VCRs and settop DVRs, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals. The partiesâ(TM) stipulations, moreover, have removed two critical issuesâ"contributory infringement and fair useâ" from this case. That artificial truncation of the possible grounds for decision would make this case an unsuitable vehicle for clarifying the proper application of copyright principles to technologies like the one at issue here."
It sounds as though they are expecting this case to essentially repeat for an arbitrary future combination IP holder and cable company, without the peculiar waivers of contributory infringement claims and fair-use counterclaims, and are simply waiting for that no-holds-barred case to be settled by a lower court. The extreme quibbling over (to quote the brief) âoewhoâ would âoemakeâ the copies that would be stored does not inspire my confidence, as all this decides is whether the alleged infringement should be considered as direct or contributory. The cynic in me says that a pro-RIAA author would rather the latter be the ultimate test case since the bar for arguing secondary/contributory infringement is much lower. (You stored arbitrary data which included the pointer to a pointer to data that a 3rd-party chose to infringe? You're a contributory infringer!)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Do I really CARE that our president is a funny looking nappy headed non-white?
I found parts of your post such as this to be extremely objectionable. Seriously, this sort of thing is agony to read.
Please don't capitalise part of a sentence like that. Emphasis like that doesn't help everyone hear your tone, it just makes those of us who don't hear your tone wince. Think about caps as shouting. Would you really SAY something like that, shouting out one word in the middle of everything?
Try using italics. It WILL NOT BE as annoying.
"Try using italics. It WILL NOT BE as annoying."
I make no apologies for my writing style. It is ironic that you use the same "technique" to make your own point.
The lack of apologies out of the way, you might consider some possibilities. Some of us have vision problems. Some of us have learning problems. Some of us are doing exactly what we were taught during the course of our lives. Some of us aren't really used to slashdot. I could go on. No need, though.
If you find my use of capitalization so objectionable, just add me to the ignore list. I am a loud man, and I really DO stress my points in conversation LOUDLY. There are no italics in the spoken language. Since I was taught to write like I talk, that's what I do.
Would you care to address the content of my post, or just the method of delivery? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts? That, I care about. Obviously, I don't care very much about proper punctuation, capitalization, etc. I'm not a very retentive person. ;-)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Lawyers have their trolls too. It seems that the RIAA/MPAA have many of them working their bridges, but only the judges get to mod them "-1 Misconduct", and you need to be a Jack Thompson to get modded "-5 disbarred" :-)
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.
Guess I'll vote for the nigger next time, too. I dunno, man. I haven't known many black people in my life, nor wetbacks, camel-jockeys or whatever. Some folks in my situation distrust such people. Fear of the unkown, I guess. Me, I think I understand my fellow white man pretty well, and I know what kind of treacherous assholery we can get up to. Maybe those weird darkies are different by nature. I'll take the unknown evil over the known.
I make no apologies for my writing style. It is ironic that you use the same "technique" to make your own point.
Whoosh? I'm not sure I can call it on the parent poster.
The lack of apologies out of the way, you might consider some possibilities. Some of us have vision problems. Some of us have learning problems. Some of us are doing exactly what we were taught during the course of our lives. Some of us aren't really used to slashdot. I could go on. No need, though.
Wry humour aside, have you considered that my suggestion might be actually be a good one, and worth learning even there is a situation like the ones you describe, or if someone is older and set in his ways?
There are no italics in the spoken language. Since I was taught to write like I talk, that's what I do.
Umm, actually, there are different types of emphasis used in the spoken language, even (as I recently learned), in sign language. That's why caps aren't appropriate as a "blanket" writing device for emphasis.
Would you care to address the content of my post, or just the method of delivery?
Why ask this after I've already posted a reply that addressed just the method of delivery?
Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts?
Your post seemed to be made up with statements containing your feelings toward certain aspects of presidential politics. Are you asking if I think you should have different feelings? If I agree or disagree with your relief that Obama was elected rather than McCain, how would that contribute anything? We know there are lots of people who are relieved Obama was elected, and lots of people who think McCain was a better choice. In short, the content of your post isn't well suited for commentary.
That, I care about.
If you truly care about people agreeing/disagreeing with your thoughts, you should probably care about written communication skills, as they are used to express them. To your point, though, my last comment about your post not being suited to commentary isn't meant to offend, but be an honest reaction to what you posted.
Even so, the phrasing of my original reply actually addresses the content of your post, albeit subtly. The first two sentences don't work without that implication. Overt and loud communication are much more clear than subtleties by nature, but that level of clarity isn't always what's appropriate.
Actually, I'd wager _more_ than half of the population fall below the mean intelligence level. Intelligence certainly appears to be skewed to the right after all.
Well it's nice of you to defend the groups that might have been offended by the rather ambiguous word in that sign-off - I would have thought the offence was centred on the word 'cretinous', but nevermind.
.
Interesting that you didn't come to the defence of the 'nappy-heads' mentioned in the same post, which I can only assume is a completely unveiled attack on people who wear turbans (mostly Sikhs where I'm from, and they've done nothing to harm anyone lately?)? Still haven't figured out how that relates to your new Pres though?
Maybe so. Dick Morris argues that this is exactly how he's neutralized Hillary Clinton:
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-incredible-shrinking-clintons-2009-05-26.html
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
one of these days you will get your head out of your ass
It's getting a little late for that.
and find out that those who rule us aren't alien beings
I already knew that.
but human beings
I already knew that.
just like you.
Not exactly.
it will probably coincide roughly around the time you realize that you yourself are not some vanguard of moral precision,
Damn you. Are you trying to break my bubble? My parents probably thought they were training me for Messiah.
nor whatever other heroes you have right now that you somehow view as morally perfect
The only morally perfect heroes I had are deceased. They were few in number. I am not in their league.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
you ARE a paragon of virtue, here on slashdot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
which I can only assume is a completely unveiled attack on people who wear turbans
Actually in America it's a reference to blacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus#Rutgers_women.27s_basketball_controversy/
So whats up with your low budget movie? last update 2006?
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
I should have been more specific. You make it sound like I wouldn't be OK with returning to 18 years. I'd be fine with five! But I'm not fine with people just taking whatever they feel like.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
It is the neolibs that post those stupid posts and you just eat it up because it fits so perfectly with what the media have told you a conservative is.
Those posts are solely designed to taint the character of the people that do not support their ideology.
It is so blatant that I cannot believe so many slashdotters fall for it.
These posts do not contain any kind of conservative message, just racial hatred. (And to anticipate the response - racial hatred is not conservatism.)
True enough. Nevertheless, the Republican Party has a long history of playing on such fear and ignorance in order to grab votes. Indeed, and to their credit, during most of the early '90's, they did so with enviable mastery. Unfortunately, one can employ that "those rednecks don't speak for us..." dodge for only so long before a sufficient segment of the public calls bullshit on such hypocrisy and hands the offenders their asses in a couple of consecutive elections. Fortunately, (or unfortunately, for Republicans) the Republican leadership (such as it is right now) has failed utterly to realize this and continues to play to the same fearful and ignorant (redneck) portion of their "base".
BTW, apologies up front to those who choose to wear the "redneck" label for reasons other than an unfortunate failure of the educational system.
Honestly, if these "redneck conservatives" are passionate enough to sit by their computers all day and post this garbage, why would they post anonymously? Do you really think someone filled with this much hatred would be afraid of someone seeing their made up username?
Of course! On /., a white sheet isn't very effective, but the AC moniker will do when you're too afraid to show your face while you make an ass of yourself.
Given that they would have been just as in favor of McCain over Hillary, I think we can safely say it was on policy grounds.
will go down in history as the worst thing about how our age handled jurisdiction/law.
If the defendant secretly knows he is guilty, he must lie to his lawyer too. And upon his admission of guilt, the lawyer must feel stabbed in the back, in the courtroom, since the client lied to him too.
The current system of client-attorney privilege where the defendant admits his guilt in private and pays off or pleads the lawyer to defend his position using argumentative skills and experience, but without ethics, *guarantees* that at any point in time, 50% of the lawyers, intelligent and resourceful individuals in society with great proximity and familiarity to the seat of legal power *are cheating the court, the state and the public*
This is a glaring flaw in the system as far as criminal justice is concerned - in cases of serious nature like murder, fraud, violence, harassment and injustice in business and employment.
"Defective by design" is an understatement for this situation.
Any possible remedies for this absurd anomaly?
Uhh, isn't that where we're at right about now?
Requiem for the American Dream
This ass-clown can't even do the math properly, or reseatrch the history... clearly a disgruntled Bush voter. And yet, he's fine with stupid people voting for one of their own, while black people can't?
Don't trust me... here's some actual reference material:
http://racism-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/african_american_voting_patterns
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_1_35/ai_n6145431/
I will summerize. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Kennedy and Johnson, black voters have supported the Democratic Party very strongly. This is no surprise... the Republicans have, at various times, openly courted white racists. This was what Nixon did, and it's what swung the US South strongly to the Republicans for, well, until this last election, at the least. 82% of black voters went Democratic in 1964; 92% in 1968. With a very few exceptions, black voters have exceeded 80% vote for Democratic Presidents ever since. There was not rational reason to have expected fewer to vote for Obama than voted for Clinton (83% in 1992, 84% in 1996), Gore (90%), or Kerry (88%).
Obama and the Democrats clearly do represent the general populus more than the increasingly Far Right and Radically Christian Republicans. The Republican Party is openly supported by as few as 21% of the country today (based on those who self-identify as Republican), and those numbers are falling, as the leadership of the party goes increasingly into Wing-Nut territory. When morons like Rush Limbaugh effectively run the Party, no mainstream voters will be attracted, period.
I think this is a great chance for the Libertarian Party to grab some market share, maybe even replacing the Republicans as #2. They espouse most of what the "better angels" of the old (pre-deficit spending, pre-Reagan) Republican Party stood for, without all that bad stuff (warmongering, theocratics, racism, elitisim, etc), and while I voted Democratic in most elections, they represent a belief system that would give me (and many other thinking people) a real choice in future elections. They might need to expand their platform a bit, but with the Republicans' contracting theirs, the door it open.
You're right, and for the record, I don't consider it appropriate that you got modded down to -1.