While, marketing an advertising is bad in general - satans spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, as Bill Hicks characterizes it - unfortunately a good charity should probably play the evil game, none the less.
For example, when Amnesty International does TV ad campaigns they get much more donations. It's stupid and sad, as making ads costs a lot, so it should technically be possible to transfer funds from those who want to contribute to those who need them without marketing, but that's just the way it works in this system - marketing creates demand.
In cases like Amnesty, the ends justify the means. Or do they?
>[Y]ou can't make in roads and try to effect change if you're not in the country at all.
Or you can totally blockade a country to affect change. Conveniently enough, you can choose which tactic suits you. So, you're standing up for freedom by blockading Cuba and you're standing up for freedom by doing business with China. You're a saint if you do, you're a saint if you don't. Very convenient.
Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?
Yes. Yes, I do. The whole "pervert around every corner just waiting to rape YOUR DAUGHTER!" argument is every bit as exploitative and dishonest as terrorism scare-mongering.
I understood the point differently: The potential of misuse by idiot government thugs/bureaucrats and thereby trouble for people is greater than the terrorist threat.
Maybe if this is just a CIA thing, where they all are real smart professionals, it wouldn't be a widespread problem (unless ones views differ from those of the CIA).
But in general, a huge problem about this new big brother society of ours is that the people at the monitors are security guards and police officers. Have you seen those? I wouldn't let those be in charge of filming everybody all the time. There's too many stupid jerks there who'd circulate stuff they find amusing.
What I meant was that if a corporation does good by the people, it's because that is good for their bottom line, but, at least in principle, an elected government can dish out the will of the people, for the sake of dishing out the will of the people.
Google is not empowered to use force against the populace, nor to maintain order, nor to enact law. The Government is. There is a subtle difference.
So, they depend of the monopoly of force that the state holds for their force- and order-needs. They need to take the time consuming detour of lobbying for the laws they need.
Subtle difference indeed. Depending on the issue, one or the other of these overlords is the worse evil.
Goverments can at least sometimes, in some places, do things that are actually the right thing to do for the people.
What about those in the culture that don't agree the oppression of them is ok? How many people would you have to be to legitimately claim that you should not be oppressed?
I forgot one thing: A lens with as wide an angle as possible (within limits).
If you're going to take pictures of people indoors, you will fit more of them and the room if you have a relatively wide lens. I'd sacrifice zoom-ability for a wider starting point, like about 24 mm (equivalent to about 35 mm, iirc, on old-school cameras).
Then I'd grumble when I want to take a picture of that squirrel a few meters away, though.
A problem with DSLRs is that you wont have it with you when the photo opportunity presents itself.
For a compact camera, I'd look at the size of my pockets to find how big it can be and then find the one at that size with the largest sensor, not minding the pixel count as much as sensor size and see if I could afford that one.
Ability to shoot in some RAW format would be a definite plus also, in my opinion, in case I accidentally take a photo that I should be able to make look as good as possible.
RAW will let you take pics without the blurring (or whatever it is) of jpeg compression and also the camera won't be "developing" the image with any white-balance set, which can throw away a lot of useful information if it happens to be wrong.
And what about the burning of food stuffs in cars?!? That sounds totally insane, when there are people about that rather eat those sunflowers. It would be as crazy as if we based the entire economy on lying and greed!
If I took out a bottle of red wine and couldn't start drinking it for 30 minutes, it would taste better than if I'd immediately poured a glass, regardless of whether it was opened or not.
Technically, it might not be, but nonetheless, having the information of their choosing reach people and the information they want to suppress not reaching people, would be the end result in aggregate anyway.
Once they send in the uniformed goons to stop you from setting up a printing press in your backyard and distributing it yourself...that's where it crosses the line.
And let's say they wouldn't do that, since that would be bad PR. Instead they'd suffer the consequences of having my leaflets reach a few thousand consumers every now and then, while they'd reach practically everyone everywhere all the time.
Freedom of speech does not bring any obligation for others to provide you with a platform for that speech, nor does it force others to pay attention to said speech.
Quite. However pro freedom I might be, I would not be happy to invite any crazies into my living room to scream angry fascist propaganda at me, for example.
But if I owned the whole world or significant parts of it, and if most bookshelves and every soapbox was in my living rooms, we'd clearly have a problem.
So, whether it is censorship or not, when some entity in practice controls what movies are on shelves and if filmmakers are self-censoring in hopes of getting onto those shelves, there is a problem.
Corporations can't feel remorse or make decisions. The person who decided to go after Eckhart should be the one to say "sorry". Hiding behind the corporate logo makes the apology empty.
True, but I find that the case is more often that whoever it is that makes the decisions for these emotionless machines gets to blame some (or a few) individual(s) for whatever it is that is done in the name of the corporation, which can then go about business as usual.
So any product WalMart/Sam's Club doesn't sell is now the victim of censorship? No wonder Slashdotters have such a warped vision of the world.
So, logically, if/when WalMart/Sam's Club and maybe a handful other megacorporations own all production and distribution of everything, there will be no censorship, since it isn't called that when you use the power of money and connections instead of the power of law and police?
You jest, I think. I don't think the furniture behemoth of which you speak, the one with the member of the fascist New Swedish Movement at the helm, have whitepapers, but people have been known to hack their furniture into server racks, for example:
hehe... yeah... Seriously, though, is there a difference between a meme and an idea? What is the difference between an idea and any other kind of information formed or interpreted in a human brain? Oh, I guess one can have an idea in ones head and never tell anyone. Can a meme be more than an idea that is transmitted? What is the capital of Assyria?
Slashdot Mirror
What could possibly go wrong?
So maybe there could be a little computer and a battery on the hdd along with the gigs of cache?
One word: Esata
Its benchmarks for cold boots and application launches show the new drive to be just a few seconds slower than a SSD.
My Debian sid boots in a few (noticeably less than ten) seconds into kdm. A few seconds of ten seconds is about a third or more.
"Newfangled tech! Now at least 33% slower!"
Great slogan you got there.
Note to self: Do not forget to close tags or click the fucking preview button.
advert.
but humble bundle is like charity man!
Exactly.
While, marketing an advertising is bad in general - satans spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, as Bill Hicks characterizes it - unfortunately a good charity should probably play the evil game, none the less.
For example, when Amnesty International does TV ad campaigns they get much more donations. It's stupid and sad, as making ads costs a lot, so it should technically be possible to transfer funds from those who want to contribute to those who need them without marketing, but that's just the way it works in this system - marketing creates demand.
In cases like Amnesty, the ends justify the means. Or do they?
>[Y]ou can't make in roads and try to effect change if you're not in the country at all.
Or you can totally blockade a country to affect change. Conveniently enough, you can choose which tactic suits you. So, you're standing up for freedom by blockading Cuba and you're standing up for freedom by doing business with China. You're a saint if you do, you're a saint if you don't. Very convenient.
Yes, that was a silly remark and didn't fit in with my actual point of the real problem being CCTV everywhere, manned by incompetent assholes.
That is,of course, suboptimal. But they won't be coming after most of us. Incompetent buffoons manning most of the cameras might easily affect anyone.
Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?
Yes. Yes, I do. The whole "pervert around every corner just waiting to rape YOUR DAUGHTER!" argument is every bit as exploitative and dishonest as terrorism scare-mongering.
I understood the point differently:
The potential of misuse by idiot government thugs/bureaucrats and thereby trouble for people is greater than the terrorist threat.
Maybe if this is just a CIA thing, where they all are real smart professionals, it wouldn't be a widespread problem (unless ones views differ from those of the CIA).
But in general, a huge problem about this new big brother society of ours is that the people at the monitors are security guards and police officers. Have you seen those? I wouldn't let those be in charge of filming everybody all the time. There's too many stupid jerks there who'd circulate stuff they find amusing.
Hi guys! Is this the meeting at the docks? About the revolution? You have my ... [looks around for axe, sword or bow] ... camera and pen.
We don't have an individual ringbearer, do we? We have a lot of them, distributed, decentralized.
ng...
Maybe I wasn't being clear just then..(?)
What I meant was that if a corporation does good by the people, it's because that is good for their bottom line, but, at least in principle, an elected government can dish out the will of the people, for the sake of dishing out the will of the people.
Google is not empowered to use force against the populace, nor to maintain order, nor to enact law. The Government is. There is a subtle difference.
So, they depend of the monopoly of force that the state holds for their force- and order-needs. They need to take the time consuming detour of lobbying for the laws they need.
Subtle difference indeed. Depending on the issue, one or the other of these overlords is the worse evil.
Goverments can at least sometimes, in some places, do things that are actually the right thing to do for the people.
Mister Mxyzptlk, is that you?
Maybe.
What about those in the culture that don't agree the oppression of them is ok? How many people would you have to be to legitimately claim that you should not be oppressed?
I forgot one thing: A lens with as wide an angle as possible (within limits).
If you're going to take pictures of people indoors, you will fit more of them and the room if you have a relatively wide lens. I'd sacrifice zoom-ability for a wider starting point, like about 24 mm (equivalent to about 35 mm, iirc, on old-school cameras).
Then I'd grumble when I want to take a picture of that squirrel a few meters away, though.
A problem with DSLRs is that you wont have it with you when the photo opportunity presents itself.
For a compact camera, I'd look at the size of my pockets to find how big it can be and then find the one at that size with the largest sensor, not minding the pixel count as much as sensor size and see if I could afford that one.
Ability to shoot in some RAW format would be a definite plus also, in my opinion, in case I accidentally take a photo that I should be able to make look as good as possible.
RAW will let you take pics without the blurring (or whatever it is) of jpeg compression and also the camera won't be "developing" the image with any white-balance set, which can throw away a lot of useful information if it happens to be wrong.
And what about the burning of food stuffs in cars?!? That sounds totally insane, when there are people about that rather eat those sunflowers. It would be as crazy as if we based the entire economy on lying and greed!
If I took out a bottle of red wine and couldn't start drinking it for 30 minutes, it would taste better than if I'd immediately poured a glass, regardless of whether it was opened or not.
Correct. That is not censorship.
Technically, it might not be, but nonetheless, having the information of their choosing reach people and the information they want to suppress not reaching people, would be the end result in aggregate anyway.
Once they send in the uniformed goons to stop you from setting up a printing press in your backyard and distributing it yourself...that's where it crosses the line.
And let's say they wouldn't do that, since that would be bad PR. Instead they'd suffer the consequences of having my leaflets reach a few thousand consumers every now and then, while they'd reach practically everyone everywhere all the time.
Freedom of speech does not bring any obligation for others to provide you with a platform for that speech, nor does it force others to pay attention to said speech.
Quite. However pro freedom I might be, I would not be happy to invite any crazies into my living room to scream angry fascist propaganda at me, for example.
But if I owned the whole world or significant parts of it, and if most bookshelves and every soapbox was in my living rooms, we'd clearly have a problem.
So, whether it is censorship or not, when some entity in practice controls what movies are on shelves and if filmmakers are self-censoring in hopes of getting onto those shelves, there is a problem.
http://eff.org/donate [eff.org]
And for the remainder of 2011, they seem to have some sort of drive for someone to match the donation, doubling it.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/double-your-impact-take-eff-mission-challenge
Now seems like a good time to donate. I would, if I had any money of my own.
Corporations can't feel remorse or make decisions.
The person who decided to go after Eckhart should be the one to say "sorry". Hiding behind the corporate logo makes the apology empty.
True, but I find that the case is more often that whoever it is that makes the decisions for these emotionless machines gets to blame some (or a few) individual(s) for whatever it is that is done in the name of the corporation, which can then go about business as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_scandals
So any product WalMart/Sam's Club doesn't sell is now the victim of censorship? No wonder Slashdotters have such a warped vision of the world.
So, logically, if/when WalMart/Sam's Club and maybe a handful other megacorporations own all production and distribution of everything, there will be no censorship, since it isn't called that when you use the power of money and connections instead of the power of law and police?
Yay, future!
You jest, I think. I don't think the furniture behemoth of which you speak, the one with the member of the fascist New Swedish Movement at the helm, have whitepapers, but people have been known to hack their furniture into server racks, for example:
http://wiki.eth-0.nl/index.php/LackRack
hehe... yeah... Seriously, though, is there a difference between a meme and an idea? What is the difference between an idea and any other kind of information formed or interpreted in a human brain? Oh, I guess one can have an idea in ones head and never tell anyone. Can a meme be more than an idea that is transmitted? What is the capital of Assyria?