He said, "attempted banning books", which can only refer to the list; what she DID was ask about the possibility of banning books--possibility as a part of a "test of loyalty."
In no way did she ever attempt to ban a book, though. Maybe you should head to a dictionary web site and look up the word "attempt", perhaps that will clear up some confusion over this matter.
Yes, she did ask that, but unlike what he said, she did NOT request a list of books to be banned, ever. He was referring to the list of books; the list was a phony. Nothing more needs to be said.
How cute that I was modded down. Obama camp out in full force, "changing" politics as usual I see. I don't even like McCain or Palin; I'm just sick of the Obama fan's constant mudslinging and at times repeating lies. If the people on DailyKoS are anything like Obama then I really hope he doesn't become president (not that I hope McCain does, either...).
Don't read everything you read on Digg or DailyKoS. Sheesh. I think every single degree should include a component in critical thinking and research... can you guess why?
Re:Will you ever learn?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Probably the funniest thing I've read on slashdot all week.
No shit. Do you have any freakin' clue how frustrating it would be to play a game where you can't control what happens to your creation? And this is beside the point, anyway. It's certainly evolution, just not evolution driven by random chance.
Actually, you could easily do that--make a game where players change the organism's environment, instead of the organism, and have the organism respond appropriately as per natural selection. That's far closer to evolution than what Spore is. Unfortunately, Spore doesn't resemble any form of evolution, at all.
Anyway, you don't understand evolution at all if you think it's "random chance". Read less Stephen J. Gould, please.
Steam's DRM works because Steam has the huge advantage of being able to actually download your purchases onto other computers. It's awfully nice not having to worry about the physical media, not having to sort through a stack of CDs only to find out you stuck another CD in the game's case and need to find where you put it, etc etc.
Steam's DRM is almost nothing, and in fact, I'd say it's pretty much a good compromise.
Steam's going to be around; if anything, similar business models will spring up.
Between being "superseded" and "universally adopted".
Technically, Blu-ray has already superseded DVD in many, many aspects. But Blu-ray now still has very little adoption. What really matters is not whether Blu-ray will be (technologically) superseded, but the cost-benefit of the technology. If Blu-ray gets adopted by the general consumer due to falling prices, it'll be around awhile so long as the next generation is more expensive especially relative to its perceived benefits, much like current situation with DVD as it is. Blu-ray being technologically superseded in 5-10 years is hardly surprising by itself.
Because most libertarians pretend that only governments can effectively censor or otherwise repress people.
There's a difference between denying something that they're not intrinsically entitled to, and tossing someone in jail.
You seem to think I need to be proposing that somehow the government can or should solve this, and I'm not.
We are in agreement.
My point is that repression happens, frequently, without any sort of government action.
I would agree, too, although I might not think of "repression" in the same way you do.
The libertarian myth is that governments are inherently evil and serve only to subjugate and interfere with business through "excessive" taxation, and that we would all be better off dismantling it and allowing unbridled capitalism to work it's magic and create a better world. I say myth because, frankly, that's jut not how it works.
It's a bit extreme because you can't lump "government" as one single entity much like you can't lump everyone up in "society", so on and so forth.
No one is, or should be, saying that the world would be perfect. But I'd say that government usually only delivers another layer of corruption instead of anything good. You can at least avoid doing business with a corporation--and you aren't entitled to their business, anyway.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"... to go on a tangent, it's pretty funny it's no excuse given that these days anything could be illegal or restricted and there's simply no way to find out. Pass enough laws and everyone's a criminal.
A douchebag for "civil disobedience" and standing up against a ridiculous law? I guess Rosa Parks (and all the others that did similar, before and after) was a douchebag who should have not coaxed the state into throwing her into prison wasting taxpayer money...?
He's doing a very important thing because by challenging the law he's effectively testing it and him winning means other people won't be intimidated by this bullshit--you say he should avoid breaking this obviously bogus, incredibly idiotic law, but then, you're just saying that people should bend over backwards to accommodate the state's stupidity. Thus the only time the law would be tested would be, ironically, in a case of ignorance of the law, in a case where the law is copyrighted. Heh!
Maybe it is _you_ that needs to get over that fact, instead of calling whiners to people who has their service capped for no reason other than corporate greed.
I know socialism and being "community oriented" is the cool new thing on the block nowadays, but truth is they're a business, they're trying to make money; similarly, if you find a better deal elsewhere, you'd drop them with no second thoughts, either. Quit acting like they owe you something.
Why bring up libertarianism at all, then, if you agree this isn't something the government should handle?
You even seem to turn a blind eye to Discovery endorsing snake oil--strange. If Discovery can't turn a profit without having con artists sponsors, they're doing something very wrong.
What's stranger is that you contradict yourself without realizing it:
If anything, I propose a boycott of Amex/Visa/MC. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.... And we in Massachusetts have the power to change their minds by voting. When democratic governments do things the people dislike, they can be stopped with ease, but when major corporations do things the people dislike they cannot. Simple.
You CAN do something--boycott. On these issues, it's about as effective as voting, except the government can threaten jail. Corporations can only threaten in a manner similar that consumers can--withholding patronage.
I absolutely agree with you about boycotting. The problem is, a majority of time, people don't give a shit which is also why democracy doesn't work either (although democracies can actually take your money or throw you in jail, or worse).
I think you wanted to make a dig at libertarianism without really realizing that it's no different at all in your system, and can't be. You've said nothing that conflicts with what even the most hardcore libertarian would say, in terms of solutions.
It's an imperfection, not a "flaw"; few think libertarianism would be a utopia.
Your thinking is rather shoddy. Discovery Channel is not "forced"--it's the profit motive and human nature at work. Congratulations, you've discovered one of the bad things humanity does.
There's a difference between "asshole" injustice and "infringing on someone's rights" injustice. This is the case of the former. Most we can do in any really free system is inform others.
Discovery also accepts advertising dollars from less-than-stellar businesses such as ones selling "detoxifiers" and crystals and other hocus-pocus shit... I was pretty struck when I saw some of the commercials they air.
So what, exactly, do you propose? Have a law be passed saying that credit card companies can't withdraw their support of a network if the network airs something critical of them? It sucks, but the simple fact is is that you can't expect a God or Government to come down and make everything all right.
By the way, recall not too long ago the hackers of the Boston subway cards or whatever; that was the government doing pretty much the same thing--except, of course, it was threats of jail, not withholding money.
People, or groups of them, will always be dicks in any system. To claim that libertarianism has a "major flaw" due to a human constant is really poor.
It's kind of disturbing when people label something that would otherwise be good to have, but otherwise don't have a real *right* to, a "Bill of Rights", when the original, real "Bill of Rights" were more fundamentals being put in for a "just-in-case" measure, more clarifying what they felt were always being protected, for a safety measure. In fact, some opposed the Bill of Rights' inclusion on the grounds that it would lead us down the route it has today--that they are what prevents the government from passing censorship laws and such, and not actual "Rights".
It seems like nowadays people have no dignity and view the Bill of Rights as something that just prevents the government from doing things, despite, rightly or wrongly, the founders presuming men had "Natural Rights" that transcended anything the government "thought" or did.
To make a "$SOMETHING Bill of Rights", especially when it's nothing like the supposed "Natural Rights" the founders had in mind, that are simply a list of "good to have" things kind of troubles me.
I don't really believe in "Natural Rights" as derived from nature/reason but I think they're excellent to live by.
No, I do agree with your criticism in theory. The problem is, you lament "obvious" criticisms, yet, that's such a vague, blanket complaint that I have no idea to know what exactly you are taking issue with, except that it's just something you personally don't like.
You want to talk about the obvious, how about the fact that you are pointing out that people point out the obvious on slashdot? Everyone knows that now, so I don't know what purpose your rants are supposed to serve...
Slashdot Mirror
He said, "attempted banning books", which can only refer to the list; what she DID was ask about the possibility of banning books--possibility as a part of a "test of loyalty."
In no way did she ever attempt to ban a book, though. Maybe you should head to a dictionary web site and look up the word "attempt", perhaps that will clear up some confusion over this matter.
Yes, she did ask that, but unlike what he said, she did NOT request a list of books to be banned, ever. He was referring to the list of books; the list was a phony. Nothing more needs to be said.
How cute that I was modded down. Obama camp out in full force, "changing" politics as usual I see. I don't even like McCain or Palin; I'm just sick of the Obama fan's constant mudslinging and at times repeating lies. If the people on DailyKoS are anything like Obama then I really hope he doesn't become president (not that I hope McCain does, either...).
Palin didn't attempt to ban books.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
Don't read everything you read on Digg or DailyKoS. Sheesh. I think every single degree should include a component in critical thinking and research... can you guess why?
Probably the funniest thing I've read on slashdot all week.
68 should be enough for anyone.
I didn't mean successful as in unhackable, I meant simply that as far as DRM goes, it's not really that invasive.
No shit. Do you have any freakin' clue how frustrating it would be to play a game where you can't control what happens to your creation? And this is beside the point, anyway. It's certainly evolution, just not evolution driven by random chance.
Actually, you could easily do that--make a game where players change the organism's environment, instead of the organism, and have the organism respond appropriately as per natural selection. That's far closer to evolution than what Spore is. Unfortunately, Spore doesn't resemble any form of evolution, at all.
Anyway, you don't understand evolution at all if you think it's "random chance". Read less Stephen J. Gould, please.
Steam's DRM works because Steam has the huge advantage of being able to actually download your purchases onto other computers. It's awfully nice not having to worry about the physical media, not having to sort through a stack of CDs only to find out you stuck another CD in the game's case and need to find where you put it, etc etc.
Steam's DRM is almost nothing, and in fact, I'd say it's pretty much a good compromise.
Steam's going to be around; if anything, similar business models will spring up.
Allow them to brag about having built the damn cars themselves and we might be entering obscenely smug territory."
Yeah, but by then their smugness is pretty much warranted.
Simple: most people listen to music on the go, and mp3 players are cheap and allow them to do just that.
Between being "superseded" and "universally adopted".
Technically, Blu-ray has already superseded DVD in many, many aspects. But Blu-ray now still has very little adoption. What really matters is not whether Blu-ray will be (technologically) superseded, but the cost-benefit of the technology. If Blu-ray gets adopted by the general consumer due to falling prices, it'll be around awhile so long as the next generation is more expensive especially relative to its perceived benefits, much like current situation with DVD as it is. Blu-ray being technologically superseded in 5-10 years is hardly surprising by itself.
Because most libertarians pretend that only governments can effectively censor or otherwise repress people.
There's a difference between denying something that they're not intrinsically entitled to, and tossing someone in jail.
You seem to think I need to be proposing that somehow the government can or should solve this, and I'm not.
We are in agreement.
My point is that repression happens, frequently, without any sort of government action.
I would agree, too, although I might not think of "repression" in the same way you do.
The libertarian myth is that governments are inherently evil and serve only to subjugate and interfere with business through "excessive" taxation, and that we would all be better off dismantling it and allowing unbridled capitalism to work it's magic and create a better world. I say myth because, frankly, that's jut not how it works.
It's a bit extreme because you can't lump "government" as one single entity much like you can't lump everyone up in "society", so on and so forth.
No one is, or should be, saying that the world would be perfect. But I'd say that government usually only delivers another layer of corruption instead of anything good. You can at least avoid doing business with a corporation--and you aren't entitled to their business, anyway.
Yeah, I know that story. Always fun to think about.
This king sounds very humble and kind, with him requiring people to stand up and worship ("honor") him at even movie theaters.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"... to go on a tangent, it's pretty funny it's no excuse given that these days anything could be illegal or restricted and there's simply no way to find out. Pass enough laws and everyone's a criminal.
A douchebag for "civil disobedience" and standing up against a ridiculous law? I guess Rosa Parks (and all the others that did similar, before and after) was a douchebag who should have not coaxed the state into throwing her into prison wasting taxpayer money...?
He's doing a very important thing because by challenging the law he's effectively testing it and him winning means other people won't be intimidated by this bullshit--you say he should avoid breaking this obviously bogus, incredibly idiotic law, but then, you're just saying that people should bend over backwards to accommodate the state's stupidity. Thus the only time the law would be tested would be, ironically, in a case of ignorance of the law, in a case where the law is copyrighted. Heh!
Maybe it is _you_ that needs to get over that fact, instead of calling whiners to people who has their service capped for no reason other than corporate greed.
I know socialism and being "community oriented" is the cool new thing on the block nowadays, but truth is they're a business, they're trying to make money; similarly, if you find a better deal elsewhere, you'd drop them with no second thoughts, either. Quit acting like they owe you something.
But did you sue them or otherwise get back at them???
Why bring up libertarianism at all, then, if you agree this isn't something the government should handle?
You even seem to turn a blind eye to Discovery endorsing snake oil--strange. If Discovery can't turn a profit without having con artists sponsors, they're doing something very wrong.
What's stranger is that you contradict yourself without realizing it:
If anything, I propose a boycott of Amex/Visa/MC. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. ...
And we in Massachusetts have the power to change their minds by voting. When democratic governments do things the people dislike, they can be stopped with ease, but when major corporations do things the people dislike they cannot. Simple.
You CAN do something--boycott. On these issues, it's about as effective as voting, except the government can threaten jail. Corporations can only threaten in a manner similar that consumers can--withholding patronage.
I absolutely agree with you about boycotting. The problem is, a majority of time, people don't give a shit which is also why democracy doesn't work either (although democracies can actually take your money or throw you in jail, or worse).
I think you wanted to make a dig at libertarianism without really realizing that it's no different at all in your system, and can't be. You've said nothing that conflicts with what even the most hardcore libertarian would say, in terms of solutions.
It's an imperfection, not a "flaw"; few think libertarianism would be a utopia.
Your thinking is rather shoddy. Discovery Channel is not "forced"--it's the profit motive and human nature at work. Congratulations, you've discovered one of the bad things humanity does.
There's a difference between "asshole" injustice and "infringing on someone's rights" injustice. This is the case of the former. Most we can do in any really free system is inform others.
Discovery also accepts advertising dollars from less-than-stellar businesses such as ones selling "detoxifiers" and crystals and other hocus-pocus shit... I was pretty struck when I saw some of the commercials they air.
So what, exactly, do you propose? Have a law be passed saying that credit card companies can't withdraw their support of a network if the network airs something critical of them? It sucks, but the simple fact is is that you can't expect a God or Government to come down and make everything all right.
By the way, recall not too long ago the hackers of the Boston subway cards or whatever; that was the government doing pretty much the same thing--except, of course, it was threats of jail, not withholding money.
People, or groups of them, will always be dicks in any system. To claim that libertarianism has a "major flaw" due to a human constant is really poor.
Who do you think the politicians that take away things like habeas corpus are? Lawyers, primarily.
It's kind of disturbing when people label something that would otherwise be good to have, but otherwise don't have a real *right* to, a "Bill of Rights", when the original, real "Bill of Rights" were more fundamentals being put in for a "just-in-case" measure, more clarifying what they felt were always being protected, for a safety measure. In fact, some opposed the Bill of Rights' inclusion on the grounds that it would lead us down the route it has today--that they are what prevents the government from passing censorship laws and such, and not actual "Rights".
It seems like nowadays people have no dignity and view the Bill of Rights as something that just prevents the government from doing things, despite, rightly or wrongly, the founders presuming men had "Natural Rights" that transcended anything the government "thought" or did.
To make a "$SOMETHING Bill of Rights", especially when it's nothing like the supposed "Natural Rights" the founders had in mind, that are simply a list of "good to have" things kind of troubles me.
I don't really believe in "Natural Rights" as derived from nature/reason but I think they're excellent to live by.
He's not a flip-flopper because he's primarily for "change" and that means changing his positions depending on which direction the wind is blowing.
It's a perfect job for the government. Not to private contractors. That is where you get corruption, and failed projects.
Yes, government is where you get corruption and failed projects.
No, I do agree with your criticism in theory. The problem is, you lament "obvious" criticisms, yet, that's such a vague, blanket complaint that I have no idea to know what exactly you are taking issue with, except that it's just something you personally don't like.
You want to talk about the obvious, how about the fact that you are pointing out that people point out the obvious on slashdot? Everyone knows that now, so I don't know what purpose your rants are supposed to serve...