I created a GPL-like Free Media License in order to release my amatuer film work, as well as a novel (Warning - incomplete 1st draft, very rough!) and screenplay I am writing that dramatizes the conflict between the Copyright Cartels and the proponents of the free exchange of information.
I am of course an amateur, and no direct threat to Hollywood, but the license is available for anyone to use. A few people with more talent[1] than I making use of it could become a real reason for Hollywood to fear.
[1]Fortunately, my mediocre talent still far surpasses that of much of Hollywood's writers, though that isn't saying much I'm afraid.
Re:Turning your argument on its ear
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
To correct someone on a common truth (the Earth is not flat) is doing them a favor, to attack them for a personal truth is foolishness. Even more so is to berate someone for what they believe is right, by beating them over the head with what you believe is right.
Said "truth" ceases to be personal the moment it is evangalized in a public forum and presented as "the truth" with no evidence other than opinion backing it up. This is doubly so when done in an inappropriate forum such as this. To inject religious dogma into a scientific discussion is akin to an athiest grabbing the pulpit at mass and expounding on the absurdities of creationism.
To not take a stand against such intellectual aggression is foolishness, and to not berate the outright stupidity of the arguments presented is to in effect condone them, which IMHO would be intellectually dishonest.
If the religious zealots do not wish to be mocked for behaving foolishly in a scientific forum, then they should keep their religious dogma and rhetoric where it belongs, in their churches and appropriate religious discussion forums (which slashdot most emphatically is not).
One last thought: What was that rule about arguments and Nazis? Oh yeah, first one to mention them loses.:)
The only thing I've lost is a little time. Making Nazi's a taboo subject is clever, if you support their behavior, wish to suppress open discussion, or merely wish to deflect attention from an argument. Of course it is a dangerious approach to make a topic such as that out of bounds, as such a "conspiracy of silence" makes an ideal breeding ground for those with similar philosophies to espouse their views. Use at your own risk, and don't be surpised when many of us, who would most vehemently not like to see a repeat of 1930's and 1940's Germany, don't adhere to your taboo.
The Nazi example as I used it in this duscission was very appropriate for two reasons:
(1) they are a clear and concise example of a group of people who did consider themselves superior (and above judgement), who have nevertheless been harshly and appropriately judged by history and
(2) the mindset the flawed argument I was paraphrasing encourages the kind of non-critical acceptance of dogma which is a fertile breeding ground for philosophies very akin to fascism in its many forms.
Using artificial, arbitary taboos to suppress discussion and deflect attention may strike you as clever or witty. In the end, however, it is merely foolish.
Re:Understanding is what religion obfuscates
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
But one sick of having our ideas espoused by barely literate morons!!
sigh
Obviously, you missed the entire point of my argument, which was to mimick the flawed arguments (of the religious zealots) I followed up to.
I do not dispute that the argument they posed is moronic. Indeed, that was the entire point of my post. Of course it fails any formal proof of logic! That is obvious to nearly all of us. Less obvious, and far more relevant in some respects, is the danger such arguments (and the mindset they engender) pose to all of us, religious or not.
For reference on the original (flawed) arguments to which I responded, I suggest reading (or rereading) the posts higher up in this thread. I encapsulated their (the religious zealots) arguments, then did a simple substitution to demonstrate in no uncertain terms the dangers of that particular argument (and mindset).
Check the context before flaming next time -- once your acidic rhetoric is removed, all you've really done is underscore the very point I was making. Your flames would be much more relevant directed elsewhere.
BTW - Not that it is any of your business, but after work last night, at around 5:40 PM, I was in the arms of a beautiful woman. What were you doing, other than posing on slashdot as a "superior being" to those who actually take a stand when religious zealotry rears its ugly head in inappropriate places (such as a discussion of science and application of genetic research)?
Understanding is what religion obfuscates
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
And here I thought that geeks, being the subject of persecution by the "norms" were supposed to be a better, more understanding lot....
It is precisely this understanding which causes the rest of us to chortle at the irrational ravings and intellectually bankrupt posturing of the religious zealots who seem inevitably attracted to stories regarding any kind of genetic engineering or manipulation.
We chortle in much the same way we chortle at an adult who continues to profess a belief in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny long after childhood has past.
Think about the argument (and pseudo-logic) being applied to the argument to which I posted my harsh, but accurate, parody of Christianity.
Posit: God exists and is superior.
Therefor humankind is inferior.
Inferior beings cannot presume to judge the morality of a Superior being.
Therefor, no matter how reprehensible his actions may be, we cannot judge God. In fact, we are expected to sing his praises no matter what.
Now substitute "Nazi" for "God" and "the rest of us" for "humankind":
Posit: Nazis exist and are superior.
Therefor the rest of us are inferior.
Inferior beings cannot presume to judge the morality of a Superior being.
Therefor, no matter how reprehensible their actions may be, we cannot judge Nazis. In fact, we are expected to sing their praises no matter what.
Anyone else see the insidious danger this kind of mindset represents to all of mankind?
Yeah, seriously - without starting a flamewar - anything has got to be better than just putting kids on dope.(I'm not condemming parents who use Ritalin - I'm just saying, developing new treatments is a good thing).
As someone who was put on Ritalin briefly as a child (and vividly recall how the beauty and luster of the world was drained as a result, replaced by a torpid and colorless place one wouldn't recognize), I do blame parents for doping up their children. A little dietary change (hint: avoid artificial colorings and preservatives), a litte attention, and a little breathing room to play do (and did) wonders.
It is very indicative of just how degenerate and selfish our society has become, that parents routinely drug their children to achieve desirable behavior, then turn around and drug themselves with prozac, caffein, or alcohol to fill the emptiness of their own sorry existence. All the while condemning users of other, alternative chemicals and waging a war on their lifestyles that is consting all of us our most fundamental rights.
How soon before we have a pill for those suffering from Consumerist Assimulation Disorder (read: those unwilling to mindlessly consume and not talk back)? Credzac, anyone (free with a $25 purchase applied to your new Visa or MasterCard, limited time offer, hurry now!)
If you really think about it, the first OS has been the Universe, and the Universe seems a lot like Windows. Ever since 'booting' (ie big bang) since the 'epoch' (0 seconds afterward), it has slowly grown bigger and bigger, and no one really knows when it will stop.
And we are but the "I Love You" virus running within it? Or just random bits, waiting to be switched off?
"Not invented here" is orthogonal to "invented by an ivory tower committee."
You do understand what orthogonal means, right? Or are you too blinded by your anti-american bigotry to grasp the notion that rule by design by closed committee is one of the least competent way to develop anything (remember the 7-level OSI network model? Seen any implimentations around lately?)
As an example of one of the most open and successful methods for developing standards, take a look at how the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) operates, and the standards they have created. (Hint: you're making use of a whole bunch of them everytime you read slashdot.)
Re:I am God. Bow down before me, bitch.
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
I think I've seen you on an IRC channel somewhere:>
Until 1998, I fought to the death that a kilobyte = 1024 bytes, but now there are proper definitions for base 2, I will fight to the death kilobyte = 1000 bytes.
Your life must be pretty cheap, if you're willing to sacrifice it over definitions created by an ivory-tower committee with little regard to the real world, or real-word usages of the terms which have been in use for nearly as long as there have been binary computers.
Myself, I'll fight to the death over something that matters, but not whether 2^10 Bytes is pronounced kilobytes (kB) or kibibytes (kiB). Of course, if they'd been smart, they would have made the abbreviated nomenclature more flexible, with k(sub)2B. Then, when we have trinary computers (Heinlein fans, anyone?), we could have units of 3^10 abbreviated as k(sub)3(/sub)whatevers. Comming up with nomenclature a little less asinine than "Kibi" is left as an excersize for the class (hint: randomly generated syllables would probably be an improvement).
I am God. Bow down before me, bitch.
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 3
This Universe is Mine.
I am God Here.
I define superior morals as follows:
All people shall bow down and worship Me.
All people shall pay homage to Me, and believe in Me, despite the contradicting physical evidence I shall create to sow confusion in their souls. If they should question my capricious moods and inconsistent demands and proclimations they shall be cast into a dark, hot, fiery place, to be tortured for the rest of eternity.
As God, My Superior Morals allow Me to take great delight and pleasure from this. Thou shalt not kill, but I'll waste as many of you little pricks as I like.
As a final insult to the inferior beings I have created, I shall have sex with one of them (call it bestiality or incest, My Superior Morals allow me this luxury), cause her to have a child, who will suffer and be crucified, then later worshipped.
However, since I have already commanded these inferior milk suckers not to have any other god before Me, and this includes My Son, they will all be damned for worhipping him, be it in place of, or simply in addition to, Myself.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. And a damned fine way for Me to counter the ennui of endless time, being enterained by their pathetic efforts to satisfy my impossible demands, sqaundering their own pitiful and short lives in the process. Delicious irony and fantastic entertainment for the hosts of heaven.
I absolutely refuse to pay any attention to anything X.Org has to say until they fix the typo on this page
Fortunately for the rest of us, most techies spend a great deal more energy writing and fixing code than checking their grammer, spelling, and adherence to linguistic dogma.
While you continue to bitch and moan about our spelling, lax grammer, or bad prose, the rest of us will go on producing software that will continue to be the envy of the Closed Source world.
Who knows, maybe someday, while you're sitting on your ass bemoaning yet another typo, we'll revise the written English language itself into something a little more coherent, purhaps yusing thuh fonetik alfabet thuh wae it wuhs intended in thuh furst plaes, fonetiklee.
because we're all wise enough to know you're too ignorant to appreciate it. sonny.
Agist fucks.
The childish demand that the elderly subsidize a younger person's lifestyle is marked +4 insightful (funny, maybe, but insightful? Give me a break.) while the above humorous reposte is marked down as a troll?
As a young person (who would love to have some georgious older woman set him up in style) I would say this agist shit reflects very, very poorly on the slashdot crowd (the moderators in particular, not the original post or the reposte, both of which I found rather funny).
Perhaps humor is simply too difficult a subject for this forum?
The only problem with banning Sony products, personally, is the fact that they've created my Playstation, and soon my Playstation 2, those would be impossible to give up, as a true gamer geek.
Fine. Be spineless and short sighted.
Just don't come bitching to the rest of us when Sony "firewalls you at your playstation."
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
Actually, I did read the article, but my interpretation had been (foolishly) slanted by the slashdot intro. Having re-read it, you are right: it is more of a preemptive strike or effort to share the blame, and being perpetrated by the subsidiary which was spun off (perhaps to take the brunt of such actions?), not the recording industry (as I had first thought after skimming the article). That of course changes the entire tone of the lawsuit. (though it is still a bit rediculous -- shall Napster sue the power company for having helped them develope their file sharing technology by providing electricity to power their servers, thus making them vulnerable to being sued by the RIAA?)
Such acts coming from the RIAA/MPAA do appear to be aimed at intimidating engineers into not developing new sharing technologies (e.g. the DeCSS debacle), but this particular case isn't one of them.
It is designed to put the fear of [insert deity here] into any software engineer harboring dreams of developing the next generation of file sharing technology.
I don't recall if the original developers of GNUtella still work at AOL or not (if they do, you can bet they're in a whole heap of trouble and their opportunities for advancement just went to zero), but it isn't really relevant.
The message to employers (and independent contractors) is clear: if your employees develop software we don't like, we're going to sue you.
The message to engineers is: we're going to give your employer every incentive to shitcan your career.
The message to everyone is "don't invent technology we don't like or we'll destroy you, and we have more than enough money to do so."
Our message, in response, should be "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" in the form of boycotting their products as well as supporting and embracing the technologies they are trying to suppress.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
Senat. House of Representatives. State Legislature. Gubornatorial Races. Mayorial Races. City council races. And the list goes on...
Besides, politicians and pollsters alike pay attention to the percentages of the losing presidential candidates (even those who get 0 electorial votes). Perot is an example where 20% of the vote (and 0 electorial votes) got his agenda adopted by both branches of the Corporate Party.
Balanced budget ? It was republican congress that forced this issue not Clinton.
(Obviously you didn't read a word I wrote, since I did not make any claim whatsoever that Clinton forced the issue. I am inclined to treat this as a troll, but since others might be confused by your misinformation I suppose I'll respond.)
It is no more true to say the Republican Congress forced the issue than it is to say Clinton forced the issue (and I said neither of those things). It was Ross Perot's campaign in 1992 which forced the issue onto both the Democrat and Republican arms of the Corporate Party. The former wanted to lower taxes (and spend more money on defense) the latter wanted to spend more money (on healthcare, student assistance, etc).
It was not until Ross Perot emerged as a force to be reckoned with that both parties put balancing the budget on their agendas, and while Republicans and Democrats differed on the particulars, both wanted to balance the budget in the end (in the face of such overwhelming popular demand that they do so). It was that environment which ultimately forced recalcitrant Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats alike into forging a compromise and actually balancing the damn thing.
Let's face the simple fact, those who voted for Ross in '92 (by and large) would have voted for Bush if he was not there. Given the margins, it's pretty safe to say that had Ross not run, Bush would have been elected.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the point I made. If Ross Perot hadn't run (and if Bush had won as a consiquence) we would not have a balanced budget (though our taxes might be lower). There might also be other minor differences (health-insurance being more tightly coupled to jobs, no family leave options, etc.) but on the whole things would be pretty much as they are, modula the budget surpluses we currently enjoy.
It was Ross Perot who put the budget deficit on the public agenda and forced both branches of the Corporate Party (both of whome were doing their best to ignore the entire subject) to address the issue and do something about it. It was his spectacular performance in the 1992 election (an unprecidented 20% of the vote) that enabled him to do so. You do not have to win in order to affect change, get your message across, or even get your policies enacted. Often, a significant showing is enough.
Those whos votes made up that 20% had more of an impact on both who was elected and the policies they had to address. As a result of 20% of those who voted in 1992, we have a balanced budget. My (wasted) vote for the Corporate Party in that election (and the one which followed) didn't have anything close to that kind of impact even though the candidate I voted for won!
So, maybe someday what you say will be true, I look forward to it, but right now, I just don't believe that is the case.
You missed the entire point of everything I wrote. Please reread what I wrote and think about it, then explain to me precisely why you feel a vote for a third party candidate is wasted. Perhaps then I can reword what I was trying to convey, such that you do not miss my point. (This is not a flame: I am seriously wondering how I might have conveyed the point more clearly).
To summarize what I'm trying to say
A vote cast for a lessor of two evils does two negative things:
Reinforces policies to which you are opposed (if you weren't opposed to many of the candidate's views the candidate would not be a "lessor of two evils" by definition)
Weakens the opposition, which actually may represent your views more accuratly, thus actually aiding and abetting the suppression of your own opinions!A vote cast for the "lessor of two evils" is a vote cast against your own views, and is both a waste and counterproductive. It is quite possibly less destructive to not vote at all rather than vote for someone you dislike marginally less than someone else.
A vote cast in opposition to the masses has a more significant impact on both the elections and resulting policies. A Green Party or Libertarian candidate getting 8% of the vote instead of 3% arouses more notice than a Corporate Party candidate winning with 49% of the vote instead of 44%, and your vote makes up a much larger portion of that 8%. This focuses significant attention on the issues of that candidate , which brings me to my final point:
Your candidate does not need to win to have the views he or she espouses have an large impact on the policies enacted by the winner. A good showing often sufficies, with the loser frequently affecting public policy as much as the winner. As another example (in addition to the Ross Perot one mentioned before), many of Mayor Daley's most popular policies here in Chicago were taken directly from a Republican candidate (who got the endorsement of one of Chicago's two big papers) who didn't even win his party's nomination![1] Never underestimate the power of a good showing by a losing candidate, which can bring more attention to an issue than a winning candidate does, even resulting in their entire platform being coopted by the winner and later enacted into law.
[1]His candidacy was scuttled for reasons involving alleged ongoing inter-party electorial collusion I won't go into here.
Anti-trust laws do not prohibit industry collusion in the creation of industry wide standards. In fact, such is generally encouraged.
It is not at all unreasonable to expect DIVX style "standards" to become defacto, or even officially sanctioned by [insert standards body here], particularly if it allows the entire industry to gouge the consumer without signficiant consiquence.
Then there is the reluctance of the government to enforce anti-trust legislation, preferring to wait and hope the market corrects the problem. Whether it is Dubya Bush's pledge to stop the litigation against Microsoft, or Clinton's procrastination of looking into the price fixing by the recording Industry, the result is largely the same: nothing is done until it is often far too late.
The current trend in both copyright law and court rulings is such that the very constitutional purpose for copyright (the creation of a public commons of cultural material) is being destroyed, at the direct behest of the Copyright Cartels and the expense of everyone else, including the artists themselves.
Even more dramatic, it is quite possible that emerging internet technologies such as FreeNet could be destroyed or banned, along with rights we the people are constitutionally entitled to, simply to protect the revinue streams of these large cartels, to which they are not constitutionally entitled.
People here need to realize that you can't copy DVDs bit-for-bit. If you want to prove me wrong, write a program that does it.
Actually, you can copy DVDs bit for bit, just not with the commonly available consumer players in most computers. A number of early models of DVD-ROM burners supported that feature, and although the newer models have specificly had this feature disabled, one cannot get around the fact that the DVD Forum did license those earlier players. In fact, it is entirely plausible that the reason they demanded this change was specifically to affect the outcome of this trial (the timing was just a little too coincidental) - they certainly didn't have a problem with it prior to that.
In addition there are numerous custom hardware implimentations being used by large publishing outfits in Asia for wholesale copyright violation.
Jon Katz is correct in identifying one of the reasons so many people feel disconnected. Both wings of the Corporate Party (Democrat and Republican) are indeed disconnected from the public, unresponsive to their desires, and all too eager to take priveleges, liberties, and even rights from them in the name of some popular, pet cause.
People on both the left and the right sense something is very wrong, despite our unprecidented prosperity, but few can put their finger on exactly what it is. Even my mother, who is a (misguided) ardent supporter of the War on Drugs comments on the shrinking relevance of the constitution and the rights it was supposed to protect.
With most issues already decided by the corporate and industrial movers and shakers to whom both branches of the Corporate Party are beholden to, there is little rhetoric to differentiate the candidates from one another (pro-choice vs. pro-life, perhaps, and possibly pro-healthcare reform vs. status quo) and even less practical difference, as neither branch of The Party is known for ever keeping its promises if such should disrupt the status quo.
To reconnect, we need to break free of the myth that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote! This myth is the single most destructive and counterproductive mindset the voters have.
If you dislike the Corporate Party's policies (Democrat or Republican), then voting for them (and thereby vindicating the very policies you oppose) is a wasted vote. Worse, it is a vote counter to your conscience and desires, which may help to explain why so many people chose not to vote at all, rather than vote for something or someone they abhore. Of course, if those were the only choices, I probably wouldn't bother to vote either, and who could blame any of us!
But there are other choices, other parties, some with very good candidates for both president and congress. In particular, Ralph Nader of the Greens, and many of the Libertarian candidates for congress, are quite good options, and there are others.
As Ross Perot demonstrated by putting the budget deficit back on the political agenda, despite the Corporate Party's respective branches unwillingness to even discuss the issue, a candidate or party doesn't have to win in order to affect change in public policy. We have a balanced budget today in no small part because Ross Perot got 20% of the vote in 1992 and shamed both branches of the Corporate Party into addressing the issue (and demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it was an issue many people cared about).
If you cast your vote for candidates who represent your views on an issue, be they socialist, libertarian, consumer advocacy (Ralph Nader), or whatever, two things will result"
one: your vote will have a much bigger impact than if it were cast for one of the Corporate Party candidates. Each percentage point a "third party" candidate wins has a disproprotionate affect, simply because it is so surprising to the powers that be. Frankly, it scares the hell out of them (why do you think Ross Perot, a demonstrably viable candidate, was frozen out of the debates in 1996?) and this fear is an effective tactic to get politicians to listen, and quite possible adopt, the very issues the losing candidate is trying to address.
Even if the vote is split among several third party candidates, can you imagine the power the message of discontent would have if 15% or 20% of the voting public voted for none of the Corporate Party candidates?
The only truly wasted votes are the ones which are either never cast, or cast for a candidate the voter does not like. The only weak vote is one cast for the status quo, be it Republican or Democrat.
The most powerful vote is the one cast in opposition, not because the candidate necessarilly wins, but because it empowers the losing candidate to be heard, and (if enough people vote for them) makes them impossible to ignore. Your single vote, alone, is much more likely to tip Ralph Naders percentage up by one, than it is to tip the balance between Al Gore and Dubya Bush.
In short, get out there, vote your conscience, and don't let the powers-that-be convince you that voting in opposition to them is a waste of your vote. It isn't. It is the most powerful thing you can do with it.
Hopefully, when a court run by a TRUE conservative (USA style) gets hold of this, the mess will be over. Can you ever imagine a true conservative saying that a bunch of "lefties" in Hollywood should tell you what you can do with your own computer equipment?
No, they'll say that "the good capitalist owners of the Intellectual Property on the DVD have the right to protect their property, and as good, True Conservatives(tm), we will preserve property rights and fend off the godless free software communists!"
Couching this issue in a "conservative" vs. "liberal" cockfight is disingenuous and misses the point completely. Both conservatives and liberals have an appalling voting record when it comes to digital media, be it efforts to censor the internet (CDA), to entrench existing monopolies (DMCA), to prevent encryption (remember the defense fund for the Author of PGP?), or to gain control of the internet and silence its many non-conformist voices.
It was Orrin Hatch who cosponsored the DMCA, for crying out loud.
And Bill Clinton who signed it (and the CDA) into law.
It really doesn't matter whether you elect the Republican or Democratic branch of the Corporate Party of America, the policies on all but a few social issues deemed unimportant to the almighty bottom line (e.g. pro-choice vs. pro-life) have been decided at a higher level of authority and are nearly identical in both branches of the Corporate Party.
Personally, I'm voting for Ralph Nadar in the hopes he gets a high enough percentage to impact the policies of those who do win (Ross Perot succeeded in this, giving us the balanced budget we enjoy today). In addition, I am preparing a way to get the hell out of this country quickly. With nearly all of our civil rights in tatters and most peaceful means of effecting change neutralized by Corporate America, change, when it inevitably does come, will probably be extremely violent. I don't want to be anywhere near this country (the USA, or "CSA" as another aptly named it) when that happens. In the meantime I'll vote and raise a voice of protest, but if and when the shit really does hit the fan I'm outta here. I refuse to sacrifice my well being because the rest of America is to lazy and stupid to stand up for their own rights.
FreeUser - who (after following the conventions and the treatment of the attendant protestors) now believes the system to be broken beyond all possible repair.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem.
I have converted a number of my old vinyl records to CD and MP3 format. It is rather simple, actually:
... and listen to the music as often as you like without damaging the master media.
I created a GPL-like Free Media License in order to release my amatuer film work, as well as a novel (Warning - incomplete 1st draft, very rough!) and screenplay I am writing that dramatizes the conflict between the Copyright Cartels and the proponents of the free exchange of information.
I am of course an amateur, and no direct threat to Hollywood, but the license is available for anyone to use. A few people with more talent[1] than I making use of it could become a real reason for Hollywood to fear.
[1]Fortunately, my mediocre talent still far surpasses that of much of Hollywood's writers, though that isn't saying much I'm afraid.
To correct someone on a common truth (the Earth is not flat) is doing them a favor, to attack them for a personal truth is foolishness. Even more so is to berate someone for what they believe is right, by beating them over the head with what you believe is right.
:)
Said "truth" ceases to be personal the moment it is evangalized in a public forum and presented as "the truth" with no evidence other than opinion backing it up. This is doubly so when done in an inappropriate forum such as this. To inject religious dogma into a scientific discussion is akin to an athiest grabbing the pulpit at mass and expounding on the absurdities of creationism.
To not take a stand against such intellectual aggression is foolishness, and to not berate the outright stupidity of the arguments presented is to in effect condone them, which IMHO would be intellectually dishonest.
If the religious zealots do not wish to be mocked for behaving foolishly in a scientific forum, then they should keep their religious dogma and rhetoric where it belongs, in their churches and appropriate religious discussion forums (which slashdot most emphatically is not).
One last thought: What was that rule about arguments and Nazis? Oh yeah, first one to mention them loses.
The only thing I've lost is a little time. Making Nazi's a taboo subject is clever, if you support their behavior, wish to suppress open discussion, or merely wish to deflect attention from an argument. Of course it is a dangerious approach to make a topic such as that out of bounds, as such a "conspiracy of silence" makes an ideal breeding ground for those with similar philosophies to espouse their views. Use at your own risk, and don't be surpised when many of us, who would most vehemently not like to see a repeat of 1930's and 1940's Germany, don't adhere to your taboo.
The Nazi example as I used it in this duscission was very appropriate for two reasons:
(1) they are a clear and concise example of a group of people who did consider themselves superior (and above judgement), who have nevertheless been harshly and appropriately judged by history and
(2) the mindset the flawed argument I was paraphrasing encourages the kind of non-critical acceptance of dogma which is a fertile breeding ground for philosophies very akin to fascism in its many forms.
Using artificial, arbitary taboos to suppress discussion and deflect attention may strike you as clever or witty. In the end, however, it is merely foolish.
But one sick of having our ideas espoused by barely literate morons!!
sigh
Obviously, you missed the entire point of my argument, which was to mimick the flawed arguments (of the religious zealots) I followed up to.
I do not dispute that the argument they posed is moronic. Indeed, that was the entire point of my post. Of course it fails any formal proof of logic! That is obvious to nearly all of us. Less obvious, and far more relevant in some respects, is the danger such arguments (and the mindset they engender) pose to all of us, religious or not.
For reference on the original (flawed) arguments to which I responded, I suggest reading (or rereading) the posts higher up in this thread. I encapsulated their (the religious zealots) arguments, then did a simple substitution to demonstrate in no uncertain terms the dangers of that particular argument (and mindset).
Check the context before flaming next time -- once your acidic rhetoric is removed, all you've really done is underscore the very point I was making. Your flames would be much more relevant directed elsewhere.
BTW - Not that it is any of your business, but after work last night, at around 5:40 PM, I was in the arms of a beautiful woman. What were you doing, other than posing on slashdot as a "superior being" to those who actually take a stand when religious zealotry rears its ugly head in inappropriate places (such as a discussion of science and application of genetic research)?
And here I thought that geeks, being the subject of persecution by the "norms" were supposed to be a better, more understanding lot....
It is precisely this understanding which causes the rest of us to chortle at the irrational ravings and intellectually bankrupt posturing of the religious zealots who seem inevitably attracted to stories regarding any kind of genetic engineering or manipulation.
We chortle in much the same way we chortle at an adult who continues to profess a belief in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny long after childhood has past.
Think about the argument (and pseudo-logic) being applied to the argument to which I posted my harsh, but accurate, parody of Christianity.
Posit: God exists and is superior.
Therefor humankind is inferior.
Inferior beings cannot presume to judge the morality of a Superior being.
Therefor, no matter how reprehensible his actions may be, we cannot judge God. In fact, we are expected to sing his praises no matter what.
Now substitute "Nazi" for "God" and "the rest of us" for "humankind":
Posit: Nazis exist and are superior.
Therefor the rest of us are inferior.
Inferior beings cannot presume to judge the morality of a Superior being.
Therefor, no matter how reprehensible their actions may be, we cannot judge Nazis. In fact, we are expected to sing their praises no matter what.
Anyone else see the insidious danger this kind of mindset represents to all of mankind?
Yeah, seriously - without starting a flamewar - anything has got to be better than just putting kids on dope.(I'm not condemming parents who use Ritalin - I'm just saying, developing new treatments is a good thing).
As someone who was put on Ritalin briefly as a child (and vividly recall how the beauty and luster of the world was drained as a result, replaced by a torpid and colorless place one wouldn't recognize), I do blame parents for doping up their children. A little dietary change (hint: avoid artificial colorings and preservatives), a litte attention, and a little breathing room to play do (and did) wonders.
It is very indicative of just how degenerate and selfish our society has become, that parents routinely drug their children to achieve desirable behavior, then turn around and drug themselves with prozac, caffein, or alcohol to fill the emptiness of their own sorry existence. All the while condemning users of other, alternative chemicals and waging a war on their lifestyles that is consting all of us our most fundamental rights.
How soon before we have a pill for those suffering from Consumerist Assimulation Disorder (read: those unwilling to mindlessly consume and not talk back)? Credzac, anyone (free with a $25 purchase applied to your new Visa or MasterCard, limited time offer, hurry now!)
If you really think about it, the first OS has been the Universe, and the Universe seems a lot like Windows. Ever since 'booting' (ie big bang) since the 'epoch' (0 seconds afterward), it has slowly grown bigger and bigger, and no one really knows when it will stop.
And we are but the "I Love You" virus running within it? Or just random bits, waiting to be switched off?
"Not invented here" is orthogonal to "invented by an ivory tower committee."
You do understand what orthogonal means, right? Or are you too blinded by your anti-american bigotry to grasp the notion that rule by design by closed committee is one of the least competent way to develop anything (remember the 7-level OSI network model? Seen any implimentations around lately?)
As an example of one of the most open and successful methods for developing standards, take a look at how the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) operates, and the standards they have created. (Hint: you're making use of a whole bunch of them everytime you read slashdot.)
I think I've seen you on an IRC channel somewhere :>
:-)
I encompass all things.
Until 1998, I fought to the death that a kilobyte = 1024 bytes, but now there are proper definitions for base 2, I will fight to the death kilobyte = 1000 bytes.
Your life must be pretty cheap, if you're willing to sacrifice it over definitions created by an ivory-tower committee with little regard to the real world, or real-word usages of the terms which have been in use for nearly as long as there have been binary computers.
Myself, I'll fight to the death over something that matters, but not whether 2^10 Bytes is pronounced kilobytes (kB) or kibibytes (kiB). Of course, if they'd been smart, they would have made the abbreviated nomenclature more flexible, with k(sub)2B. Then, when we have trinary computers (Heinlein fans, anyone?), we could have units of 3^10 abbreviated as k(sub)3(/sub)whatevers. Comming up with nomenclature a little less asinine than "Kibi" is left as an excersize for the class (hint: randomly generated syllables would probably be an improvement).
This Universe is Mine.
I am God Here.
I define superior morals as follows:
All people shall bow down and worship Me.
All people shall pay homage to Me, and believe in Me, despite the contradicting physical evidence I shall create to sow confusion in their souls. If they should question my capricious moods and inconsistent demands and proclimations they shall be cast into a dark, hot, fiery place, to be tortured for the rest of eternity.
As God, My Superior Morals allow Me to take great delight and pleasure from this. Thou shalt not kill, but I'll waste as many of you little pricks as I like.
As a final insult to the inferior beings I have created, I shall have sex with one of them (call it bestiality or incest, My Superior Morals allow me this luxury), cause her to have a child, who will suffer and be crucified, then later worshipped.
However, since I have already commanded these inferior milk suckers not to have any other god before Me, and this includes My Son, they will all be damned for worhipping him, be it in place of, or simply in addition to, Myself.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. And a damned fine way for Me to counter the ennui of endless time, being enterained by their pathetic efforts to satisfy my impossible demands, sqaundering their own pitiful and short lives in the process. Delicious irony and fantastic entertainment for the hosts of heaven.
Now sing My praises, bitch.
I absolutely refuse to pay any attention to anything X.Org has to say until they fix the typo on this page
Fortunately for the rest of us, most techies spend a great deal more energy writing and fixing code than checking their grammer, spelling, and adherence to linguistic dogma.
While you continue to bitch and moan about our spelling, lax grammer, or bad prose, the rest of us will go on producing software that will continue to be the envy of the Closed Source world.
Who knows, maybe someday, while you're sitting on your ass bemoaning yet another typo, we'll revise the written English language itself into something a little more coherent, purhaps yusing thuh fonetik alfabet thuh wae it wuhs intended in thuh furst plaes, fonetiklee.
Then it will be you who can't spell.
because we're all wise enough to know you're too ignorant to appreciate it. sonny.
Agist fucks.
The childish demand that the elderly subsidize a younger person's lifestyle is marked +4 insightful (funny, maybe, but insightful? Give me a break.) while the above humorous reposte is marked down as a troll?
As a young person (who would love to have some georgious older woman set him up in style) I would say this agist shit reflects very, very poorly on the slashdot crowd (the moderators in particular, not the original post or the reposte, both of which I found rather funny).
Perhaps humor is simply too difficult a subject for this forum?
The only problem with banning Sony products, personally, is the fact that they've created my Playstation, and soon my Playstation 2, those would be impossible to give up, as a true gamer geek.
Fine. Be spineless and short sighted.
Just don't come bitching to the rest of us when Sony "firewalls you at your playstation."
I went to my homepage with it, and the links and pictures came through just fine (including images I am loading from places like weather.com).
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
Actually, I did read the article, but my interpretation had been (foolishly) slanted by the slashdot intro. Having re-read it, you are right: it is more of a preemptive strike or effort to share the blame, and being perpetrated by the subsidiary which was spun off (perhaps to take the brunt of such actions?), not the recording industry (as I had first thought after skimming the article). That of course changes the entire tone of the lawsuit. (though it is still a bit rediculous -- shall Napster sue the power company for having helped them develope their file sharing technology by providing electricity to power their servers, thus making them vulnerable to being sued by the RIAA?)
Such acts coming from the RIAA/MPAA do appear to be aimed at intimidating engineers into not developing new sharing technologies (e.g. the DeCSS debacle), but this particular case isn't one of them.
mae culpa.
This lawsuit isn't designed to harm AOL.
It is designed to put the fear of [insert deity here] into any software engineer harboring dreams of developing the next generation of file sharing technology.
I don't recall if the original developers of GNUtella still work at AOL or not (if they do, you can bet they're in a whole heap of trouble and their opportunities for advancement just went to zero), but it isn't really relevant.
The message to employers (and independent contractors) is clear: if your employees develop software we don't like, we're going to sue you.
The message to engineers is: we're going to give your employer every incentive to shitcan your career.
The message to everyone is "don't invent technology we don't like or we'll destroy you, and we have more than enough money to do so."
Our message, in response, should be "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" in the form of boycotting their products as well as supporting and embracing the technologies they are trying to suppress.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
Two words: Electoral congress
...
And a few more:
Senat. House of Representatives. State Legislature. Gubornatorial Races. Mayorial Races. City council races. And the list goes on
Besides, politicians and pollsters alike pay attention to the percentages of the losing presidential candidates (even those who get 0 electorial votes). Perot is an example where 20% of the vote (and 0 electorial votes) got his agenda adopted by both branches of the Corporate Party.
Balanced budget ? It was republican congress that forced this issue not Clinton.
(Obviously you didn't read a word I wrote, since I did not make any claim whatsoever that Clinton forced the issue. I am inclined to treat this as a troll, but since others might be confused by your misinformation I suppose I'll respond.)
It is no more true to say the Republican Congress forced the issue than it is to say Clinton forced the issue (and I said neither of those things). It was Ross Perot's campaign in 1992 which forced the issue onto both the Democrat and Republican arms of the Corporate Party. The former wanted to lower taxes (and spend more money on defense) the latter wanted to spend more money (on healthcare, student assistance, etc).
It was not until Ross Perot emerged as a force to be reckoned with that both parties put balancing the budget on their agendas, and while Republicans and Democrats differed on the particulars, both wanted to balance the budget in the end (in the face of such overwhelming popular demand that they do so). It was that environment which ultimately forced recalcitrant Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats alike into forging a compromise and actually balancing the damn thing.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the point I made. If Ross Perot hadn't run (and if Bush had won as a consiquence) we would not have a balanced budget (though our taxes might be lower). There might also be other minor differences (health-insurance being more tightly coupled to jobs, no family leave options, etc.) but on the whole things would be pretty much as they are, modula the budget surpluses we currently enjoy.
It was Ross Perot who put the budget deficit on the public agenda and forced both branches of the Corporate Party (both of whome were doing their best to ignore the entire subject) to address the issue and do something about it. It was his spectacular performance in the 1992 election (an unprecidented 20% of the vote) that enabled him to do so. You do not have to win in order to affect change, get your message across, or even get your policies enacted. Often, a significant showing is enough.
Those whos votes made up that 20% had more of an impact on both who was elected and the policies they had to address. As a result of 20% of those who voted in 1992, we have a balanced budget. My (wasted) vote for the Corporate Party in that election (and the one which followed) didn't have anything close to that kind of impact even though the candidate I voted for won!
So, maybe someday what you say will be true, I look forward to it, but right now, I just don't believe that is the case.
You missed the entire point of everything I wrote. Please reread what I wrote and think about it, then explain to me precisely why you feel a vote for a third party candidate is wasted. Perhaps then I can reword what I was trying to convey, such that you do not miss my point. (This is not a flame: I am seriously wondering how I might have conveyed the point more clearly).
To summarize what I'm trying to say
[1]His candidacy was scuttled for reasons involving alleged ongoing inter-party electorial collusion I won't go into here.
This is why we have anti-trust laws.
Anti-trust laws do not prohibit industry collusion in the creation of industry wide standards. In fact, such is generally encouraged.
It is not at all unreasonable to expect DIVX style "standards" to become defacto, or even officially sanctioned by [insert standards body here], particularly if it allows the entire industry to gouge the consumer without signficiant consiquence.
Then there is the reluctance of the government to enforce anti-trust legislation, preferring to wait and hope the market corrects the problem. Whether it is Dubya Bush's pledge to stop the litigation against Microsoft, or Clinton's procrastination of looking into the price fixing by the recording Industry, the result is largely the same: nothing is done until it is often far too late.
The current trend in both copyright law and court rulings is such that the very constitutional purpose for copyright (the creation of a public commons of cultural material) is being destroyed, at the direct behest of the Copyright Cartels and the expense of everyone else, including the artists themselves.
Even more dramatic, it is quite possible that emerging internet technologies such as FreeNet could be destroyed or banned, along with rights we the people are constitutionally entitled to, simply to protect the revinue streams of these large cartels, to which they are not constitutionally entitled.
People here need to realize that you can't copy DVDs bit-for-bit. If you want to prove me wrong, write a program that does it.
Actually, you can copy DVDs bit for bit, just not with the commonly available consumer players in most computers. A number of early models of DVD-ROM burners supported that feature, and although the newer models have specificly had this feature disabled, one cannot get around the fact that the DVD Forum did license those earlier players. In fact, it is entirely plausible that the reason they demanded this change was specifically to affect the outcome of this trial (the timing was just a little too coincidental) - they certainly didn't have a problem with it prior to that.
In addition there are numerous custom hardware implimentations being used by large publishing outfits in Asia for wholesale copyright violation.
Jon Katz is correct in identifying one of the reasons so many people feel disconnected. Both wings of the Corporate Party (Democrat and Republican) are indeed disconnected from the public, unresponsive to their desires, and all too eager to take priveleges, liberties, and even rights from them in the name of some popular, pet cause.
People on both the left and the right sense something is very wrong, despite our unprecidented prosperity, but few can put their finger on exactly what it is. Even my mother, who is a (misguided) ardent supporter of the War on Drugs comments on the shrinking relevance of the constitution and the rights it was supposed to protect.
With most issues already decided by the corporate and industrial movers and shakers to whom both branches of the Corporate Party are beholden to, there is little rhetoric to differentiate the candidates from one another (pro-choice vs. pro-life, perhaps, and possibly pro-healthcare reform vs. status quo) and even less practical difference, as neither branch of The Party is known for ever keeping its promises if such should disrupt the status quo.
To reconnect, we need to break free of the myth that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote! This myth is the single most destructive and counterproductive mindset the voters have.
If you dislike the Corporate Party's policies (Democrat or Republican), then voting for them (and thereby vindicating the very policies you oppose) is a wasted vote. Worse, it is a vote counter to your conscience and desires, which may help to explain why so many people chose not to vote at all, rather than vote for something or someone they abhore. Of course, if those were the only choices, I probably wouldn't bother to vote either, and who could blame any of us!
But there are other choices, other parties, some with very good candidates for both president and congress. In particular, Ralph Nader of the Greens, and many of the Libertarian candidates for congress, are quite good options, and there are others.
As Ross Perot demonstrated by putting the budget deficit back on the political agenda, despite the Corporate Party's respective branches unwillingness to even discuss the issue, a candidate or party doesn't have to win in order to affect change in public policy. We have a balanced budget today in no small part because Ross Perot got 20% of the vote in 1992 and shamed both branches of the Corporate Party into addressing the issue (and demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it was an issue many people cared about).
If you cast your vote for candidates who represent your views on an issue, be they socialist, libertarian, consumer advocacy (Ralph Nader), or whatever, two things will result"
one: your vote will have a much bigger impact than if it were cast for one of the Corporate Party candidates. Each percentage point a "third party" candidate wins has a disproprotionate affect, simply because it is so surprising to the powers that be. Frankly, it scares the hell out of them (why do you think Ross Perot, a demonstrably viable candidate, was frozen out of the debates in 1996?) and this fear is an effective tactic to get politicians to listen, and quite possible adopt, the very issues the losing candidate is trying to address.
Even if the vote is split among several third party candidates, can you imagine the power the message of discontent would have if 15% or 20% of the voting public voted for none of the Corporate Party candidates?
The only truly wasted votes are the ones which are either never cast, or cast for a candidate the voter does not like. The only weak vote is one cast for the status quo, be it Republican or Democrat.
The most powerful vote is the one cast in opposition, not because the candidate necessarilly wins, but because it empowers the losing candidate to be heard, and (if enough people vote for them) makes them impossible to ignore. Your single vote, alone, is much more likely to tip Ralph Naders percentage up by one, than it is to tip the balance between Al Gore and Dubya Bush.
In short, get out there, vote your conscience, and don't let the powers-that-be convince you that voting in opposition to them is a waste of your vote. It isn't. It is the most powerful thing you can do with it.
That would be now?
No, that would be in about 3 1/2 months or so...
Hopefully, when a court run by a TRUE conservative (USA style) gets hold of this, the mess will be over. Can you ever imagine a true conservative saying that a bunch of "lefties" in Hollywood should tell you what you can do with your own computer equipment?
No, they'll say that "the good capitalist owners of the Intellectual Property on the DVD have the right to protect their property, and as good, True Conservatives(tm), we will preserve property rights and fend off the godless free software communists!"
Couching this issue in a "conservative" vs. "liberal" cockfight is disingenuous and misses the point completely. Both conservatives and liberals have an appalling voting record when it comes to digital media, be it efforts to censor the internet (CDA), to entrench existing monopolies (DMCA), to prevent encryption (remember the defense fund for the Author of PGP?), or to gain control of the internet and silence its many non-conformist voices.
It was Orrin Hatch who cosponsored the DMCA, for crying out loud.
And Bill Clinton who signed it (and the CDA) into law.
It really doesn't matter whether you elect the Republican or Democratic branch of the Corporate Party of America, the policies on all but a few social issues deemed unimportant to the almighty bottom line (e.g. pro-choice vs. pro-life) have been decided at a higher level of authority and are nearly identical in both branches of the Corporate Party.
Personally, I'm voting for Ralph Nadar in the hopes he gets a high enough percentage to impact the policies of those who do win (Ross Perot succeeded in this, giving us the balanced budget we enjoy today). In addition, I am preparing a way to get the hell out of this country quickly. With nearly all of our civil rights in tatters and most peaceful means of effecting change neutralized by Corporate America, change, when it inevitably does come, will probably be extremely violent. I don't want to be anywhere near this country (the USA, or "CSA" as another aptly named it) when that happens. In the meantime I'll vote and raise a voice of protest, but if and when the shit really does hit the fan I'm outta here. I refuse to sacrifice my well being because the rest of America is to lazy and stupid to stand up for their own rights.
FreeUser - who (after following the conventions and the treatment of the attendant protestors) now believes the system to be broken beyond all possible repair.