I actually drew this parallel with speaking with someone else, and he saw nothing wrong with putting cameras everywhere in town and letting the government monitor us. How else are we supposed to catch bad guys?
*reads* So the free media is a lie, the government does control what they say, but I was wrong when I said the exact same thing because I didn't suggest that we listen to them? How does that make sense? And wasn't it the Nazi minister of propaganda who said that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will start to believe it?
I'm not sure I'd want to invest in an oil company or someone else with a lousy record, even if I had a say in what they did. All it'd amount to was giving them my money.
Maybe we should instead find companies that are doing good, and then invest in / buy from them, rather than their competitors. We wouldn't need a website to co-ordinate this, either, as there are plenty of sites dedicated to "ethical consumerism" already.
It's not at all like America. America has does not have state censorship - the constitution forbids it. Censorship isn't needed as much when the government can insinuate itself into the media.
Maybe you're the indoctrinated one, and you only believe in Socialism because you avoid reading anything that disagrees with your preconceptions. Which is, of course, why he posted on Slashdot where he gets to hear opinions like yours.
Certainly what I've read about planned economies and dictatorships of the proletariat makes me think they just end up making most people poor, unfree and unhappy while a spoiled, vicious elite wields absolute power. That honestly sounds like America to me.
I'm sorry if I sound rude. I actually agree with you, in that I think that it's socialist policies that are destroying America. The corporations that control the country can pass laws forbidding competition -- especially foreign competition -- and getting sweet deals, subsidies, and tax breaks from the government. I.e., our pockets. And then we keep buying from them anyway.
I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to be generous -- that is, socialism. It's like punishing people not for doing something wrong, but for not doing something right. But it's even worse when it's the ones in power who benefit, instead of the impoverished. Just like here in America, and just like it was in Russia.
Sounds like America. Despite all the hoopla about freedom and whatnot in america, there is substantial indoctrination i.e. any mention of helping others gets you labelled a 'socialist' or a 'commie'. IMHO America is probably one of THE most indoctrinated societies in the world at the moment. You can't have a discussion about much with a large percentage of people about certain topics. Helping others? Heck, I've been labelled a socialist for suggesting that maybe the corporations shouldn't control the government.
It's easy to be generous with other people's money -- especially when you're helping yourself and your shareholders!
Badmouth, v.: 1. (informal) To criticize or malign, especially unfairly or spitefully.
Criticize, v.: 1. to evaluate (something), and judge its merits and faults 2. to find fault (with something)
When I say I don't think that it's right to badmouth him, I mean that I don't think one ought to insult or deride him. Point out why we should be against his agenda, yes, but not attack his person or spew hatred and vitriol.
It's that kind of thing that made me equate any criticism of President Bush with "Huh huh, look how he messes up words so much."
It's unfortunate that people like yourself chose to focus on the expressions of outrage as what was wrong with the pissed-off people, rather than actually trying to determine whether there was any real reasons for those expressions of outrage. It's unfortunate that their uncivil behavior turned me off to their message.
If you had allowed yourself to get pissed-off as well, Bush & Co. might have been ousted from office before they had a chance to do much real damage. I didn't have the time to get mad at President Bush, because I was too busy being mad at the people who insulted him.
Not the people who said anything worthwhile. Not the people who contributed to the discussion. Not the people who pointed out his and Cheney's corporate ties, secret plans, and agenda for world dominance. The people who thought that because he was president, it was okay to make fun of anything and everything about him. Who laughed derisively at his "Bushisms", the same way they'd laugh at me if I spoke my mind about something they'd disagree with.
Because of those people, I began to equate any criticism of President Bush -- even serious criticism -- with their stupid stunts and wisecracks. That's why it took me so long.
iTunes is a lot better than we give them credit for.
DRM-wise, they only have it there to appease the labels, and you can burn un-DRMed tracks to CD. I no longer use iTunes, but I still have a copy of an album I bought there. I didn't have to bypass anything, I just told iTunes to burn it to CD. No more DRM.
Value-wise, the tracks are $0.99 each, but the $10 albums usually have more than 10 tracks on them. Plus you can listen to previews of each track, and get recommendations based on your tastes.
iKnow it's trendy to bash iTunes, but if they were really just as bad as the labels (to us, their customers / potential customers) the labels wouldn't hate them so much. Especially now that they're offering DRM-free music.
But my first point there was really to illustrate that no sane individual derives morals from the bible. You mean, from your interpretation of the Bible.
I'd like to tell you you're wrong, but it was the hatred and vitriol I saw on the part of the anti-Bush crowd that kept me from listening to them for a long time.
Nowadays, I agree with them that he is a criminal, that his behavior is unethical, that he is running the country into the ground and that his war is being waged on behalf of corporate interests. But I try not to badmouth and insult him, because I don't think it's right. And I don't want to turn anyone else away.
It's hard enough getting people to listen as it is.
This wouldn't be an issue, except that most of us can't seem to choose who our phone company is. I imagine this is also going to complicate the Net Neutrality issue.
It should only take 1-2 CDs for an iTunes user to burn his or her (on average) 20 purchased, DRM'ed tracks and be able to play them on any other machine. Not all DRM is created equal.
Clearly, all decisions should be made by consensus. And clearly, all consensi are arrived at by whomever screams loudest. That's why Wikipedia makes people cite their references, and flags unsupported statements, and why Slashdot has people mod each other up or down; because nobody cares what the actual truth is.
Drawing a comparison between sunlight and an X-ray scanner is irresponsible. Insulting people who don't want to submit to invasive scans is worse.
As someone else pointed out, it isn't nearly as bad as all the other things they've already done. But perhaps he's not mature enough to give up his decency along with his privacy!
People don't hate America because we're keeping them from their virgins. Heck, if all they wanted was free sex they'd be joining us and saying how cool our TV shows are.
Setting up Linux for somebody else is a lot harder than actually using it. Anyone can use Linux once it's already installed, and as long as they can still use "the Internet" they're probably going to be fine with it.
The times are changing... for a lot of people, the web is their media player, and so long as they can access YouTube and the TV networks' websites they're good to go.
By default Fedora does includes CodecBuddy, which explains the situation to new users and points them at Fluendo's webstore, where they can buy legit media codecs. Notably, the Fluendo.mp3 codec costs 0 Euros.
Having said all that, I wouldn't recommend that a new user try out Fedora anyway, simply because there's so much setup work to be done. And I say this as a Linux newb who went to Fedora cold-turkey, straight from Windows XP, and lived there for over a month. I was determined; but for anyone else, I might recommend Ubuntu. That, or a custom Fedora install set up by a person who knows what she's doing.
Slashdot Mirror
What good will it do us to vote against unconstitutional government, when we still buy from the corporations that pay lobbyists to support it?
I actually drew this parallel with speaking with someone else, and he saw nothing wrong with putting cameras everywhere in town and letting the government monitor us. How else are we supposed to catch bad guys?
And he doesn't even live in the UK.
I think there's a lot more money behind the government's and corporations' point of view.
*reads* So the free media is a lie, the government does control what they say, but I was wrong when I said the exact same thing because I didn't suggest that we listen to them? How does that make sense? And wasn't it the Nazi minister of propaganda who said that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will start to believe it?
I'm not sure I'd want to invest in an oil company or someone else with a lousy record, even if I had a say in what they did. All it'd amount to was giving them my money.
Maybe we should instead find companies that are doing good, and then invest in / buy from them, rather than their competitors. We wouldn't need a website to co-ordinate this, either, as there are plenty of sites dedicated to "ethical consumerism" already.
I'm sorry if I sound rude. I actually agree with you, in that I think that it's socialist policies that are destroying America. The corporations that control the country can pass laws forbidding competition -- especially foreign competition -- and getting sweet deals, subsidies, and tax breaks from the government. I.e., our pockets. And then we keep buying from them anyway.
I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to be generous -- that is, socialism. It's like punishing people not for doing something wrong, but for not doing something right. But it's even worse when it's the ones in power who benefit, instead of the impoverished. Just like here in America, and just like it was in Russia.
See how well they're doing their job?
Why take over the media when you can insinuate yourself into it? That way you have the illusion of objectivity.
It's easy to be generous with other people's money -- especially when you're helping yourself and your shareholders!
Badmouth, v.: 1. (informal) To criticize or malign, especially unfairly or spitefully.
Criticize, v.: 1. to evaluate (something), and judge its merits and faults
2. to find fault (with something)
When I say I don't think that it's right to badmouth him, I mean that I don't think one ought to insult or deride him. Point out why we should be against his agenda, yes, but not attack his person or spew hatred and vitriol.
It's that kind of thing that made me equate any criticism of President Bush with "Huh huh, look how he messes up words so much."
Not the people who said anything worthwhile. Not the people who contributed to the discussion. Not the people who pointed out his and Cheney's corporate ties, secret plans, and agenda for world dominance. The people who thought that because he was president, it was okay to make fun of anything and everything about him. Who laughed derisively at his "Bushisms", the same way they'd laugh at me if I spoke my mind about something they'd disagree with.
Because of those people, I began to equate any criticism of President Bush -- even serious criticism -- with their stupid stunts and wisecracks. That's why it took me so long.
iTunes is a lot better than we give them credit for.
DRM-wise, they only have it there to appease the labels, and you can burn un-DRMed tracks to CD. I no longer use iTunes, but I still have a copy of an album I bought there. I didn't have to bypass anything, I just told iTunes to burn it to CD. No more DRM.
Value-wise, the tracks are $0.99 each, but the $10 albums usually have more than 10 tracks on them. Plus you can listen to previews of each track, and get recommendations based on your tastes.
iKnow it's trendy to bash iTunes, but if they were really just as bad as the labels (to us, their customers / potential customers) the labels wouldn't hate them so much. Especially now that they're offering DRM-free music.
And more: the mobster would do time as well. So, why isn't the president?
That's what I was just thinking.I'm not actually sure all of them think that. Maybe it's more of a case of they'll think whatever you want them to, so long as you pay them enough.
I'd like to tell you you're wrong, but it was the hatred and vitriol I saw on the part of the anti-Bush crowd that kept me from listening to them for a long time.
Nowadays, I agree with them that he is a criminal, that his behavior is unethical, that he is running the country into the ground and that his war is being waged on behalf of corporate interests. But I try not to badmouth and insult him, because I don't think it's right. And I don't want to turn anyone else away.
It's hard enough getting people to listen as it is.
This wouldn't be an issue, except that most of us can't seem to choose who our phone company is. I imagine this is also going to complicate the Net Neutrality issue.
It should only take 1-2 CDs for an iTunes user to burn his or her (on average) 20 purchased, DRM'ed tracks and be able to play them on any other machine. Not all DRM is created equal.
Clearly, all decisions should be made by consensus. And clearly, all consensi are arrived at by whomever screams loudest. That's why Wikipedia makes people cite their references, and flags unsupported statements, and why Slashdot has people mod each other up or down; because nobody cares what the actual truth is.
Right?
Drawing a comparison between sunlight and an X-ray scanner is irresponsible. Insulting people who don't want to submit to invasive scans is worse.
As someone else pointed out, it isn't nearly as bad as all the other things they've already done. But perhaps he's not mature enough to give up his decency along with his privacy!
People don't hate America because we're keeping them from their virgins. Heck, if all they wanted was free sex they'd be joining us and saying how cool our TV shows are.
As long as the government's in charge of it, though, they're the ones calling the shots.
Setting up Linux for somebody else is a lot harder than actually using it. Anyone can use Linux once it's already installed, and as long as they can still use "the Internet" they're probably going to be fine with it.
The times are changing ... for a lot of people, the web is their media player, and so long as they can access YouTube and the TV networks' websites they're good to go.
.mp3 codec costs 0 Euros.
By default Fedora does includes CodecBuddy, which explains the situation to new users and points them at Fluendo's webstore, where they can buy legit media codecs. Notably, the Fluendo
Having said all that, I wouldn't recommend that a new user try out Fedora anyway, simply because there's so much setup work to be done. And I say this as a Linux newb who went to Fedora cold-turkey, straight from Windows XP, and lived there for over a month. I was determined; but for anyone else, I might recommend Ubuntu. That, or a custom Fedora install set up by a person who knows what she's doing.