That was my immediate thought when I first read the headline declaring Wikipedia "complete and accurate free content encyclopedia." It's complete, but accurate free, which I thought was editor-speak for error-filled.
I agree. Slashdot editors only care about sensationalist stories to make money (or maybe to push some other agenda). Who else thinks we need new editors with brains, who can spell, and who try to be objective?
I submitted this article but it got rejected. Here is what I submitted:
2003-04-04 17:10:55 Arab-American Software Engineer Held as Material Witness (articles,doj) (rejected)
In the description I said something to the effect of "Unlike most/.ers I will not editorialize." I then linked to the article.
You complain about this, yet you do not complain that NetPrint costs 10 cents per page? Sounds like you have sour grapes about Cornell/Ithaca.
I live off-campus so this does not affect me at all, but I doubt Cornell is using any "shady" business practices. They pay lots of money for bandwith that is wasted on ESPN.com and KaZaa. It makes sense to bill those who abuse the system. Would you prefer that they raise the ResNet fee again or tuition?
If I were going to complain about a Cornell policy, I would bitch about their absurd prices for "a-la-carte" meals. It costs at least $6.50 for a wrap and juice!
Although I disagree that the public has substantially more power than they exercise, your point is moot because the public never exercises this "power." Less than 50% of the population votes, and American people in general are apathetic. Regardless, I think the idea of a revolution in a 1st-world country is over. It's just not plausible.
Teinanmen Square was successful because the students were unarmed and the huge media exposure.
"Photography, video, and the Internet have changed, and will change, the power of the tank."
Yes, but what about what comes after (technologically) the tank?
You seem very idealistic. Media and information are important and all, but nothing overcomes brute-force. The United States obviously does not have a liberty-loving populace and I don't think arms will help them in any way to defend their rights.
"The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power."
Am I the only one who laughed at this sentence? Honestly, private ownership of guns would in no way give citizens more power than the government. Think: a militia with handguns and rifles versus a military with tanks. If citizens really did hold more power than the government, then there would be no government and we would be in a state of nature.
You must be a freshman because last year there were claims of arrests and lawsuits because of piracy. We also got the same emails telling everyone in the dorms not to allow uploading. (Think: lots of stupid people never turning off Kazaa or their computers = lots of wasted electricity and bandwith). Also, be careful when downloading lots of data. If you download something like more than 20 gigs in a few days you get put on a shit-list. Adios.
1) Everyone in Congress agrees that farmers should be protected from the estate tax.
2) Those who support the estate tax also say that the minimum estate worth must also be raised. (i.e. the trigger should be raised.)
3) Given 1) and 2), most of the posts that argue AGAINST the estate tax are essentially moot.
4) A simple reason to support the estate tax: to prevent another family like the Bush's (or the Kennedy's for that matter) from amassing power or wealth through inheritence and NOT merit.
"the people trashing Bush's plan seem to have no knowledge of economics."
His whole post is utter flamebait.
Despite that, I will counter his argument. I point you to Paul Krugman, a leading economist at Princeton. You can read his columns in the New York Times.
"Man has advanced beyond that to educate himself in the areas of the arts and sciences and to create new tools and technology."
This is incorrect. Research has shown that other animals, whales for instance, have a similar understanding and appreciation of music. I point you to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/09/science/09MUSI.h tml . Indeed, some species have advanced past "fscking and eating and sleeping."
That Linda Bowles column is blantantly false. Gore graduated Harvard summa cum laude and Bush graduated Yale with a mediocre gpa. Gore dropped out of both divinity and law school, but maybe that reflects a change in his life goals?
Not enough time to comment on the rest of your comment.
The market will fix all social ills...
The market will prevent drug companies from selling untested or unsafe drugs...
The market will prevent food companies from selling potentially dangerous food...
The market will fix all the problems with HMO's and other insurance agencies...
The market will fix the undue influence of corporate money on legislation...
The market will fix the massive disparity in education spending between a rich town and a poor town...
Right... (ala Austin Powers)
Maybe the market will fix these problems, but it will always be after-the-fact.
"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated"
You are saying that you would vote for someone who is a fool over someone who would study the facts. Interesting.
Do you know any US history? The portentious Good and malicious Evil never sleep. The robber barrons of the early 20th century never ended their conquest for riches, at the expense of the masses, until the trust-busting of Theodore Roosevelt and other presidents.
On a different note: People who argue against socialism and communism always say that humans are naturally greedy. And as a result, the two economic systems will always fail. Now you are saying that greed can be satiated. But how can this be if greed is an innate human quality?
IMHO, those who "torment us for our own good" and the "robber barrons" are equally evil.
"Why should we leave any tax surplus in Washington?"
Because our nation is in DEBT and we need to eliminate it. Because our nation might need to have that money in a financial crisis occurs. Because we need to have responsible finanicial policy.
But don't just take it from me. How about Paul Krugman, a noted economist and columnist of the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/18/opinion/18KRUG.h tml
Rep. Istook also wrote a bill (it failed) to protect a student's "right to pray in school," but it was so vague that it clearly smashed threw the wall between church and state. It was a really disgusting bill. It would have allowed student led prayer sessions at events such as football games (recently ruled unconstitutional).
Check the ACLU's website for more info.
www.aclu.org
(Sorry to post to this thread. I couldn't find any other good place.)
So here is my sweeping generalization:
Everyone's opinions/voting preferences are simply based on how greedy they are. That is, who comes first? Me or We?
So, if you support W., it's "me me me."
If you support Gore, it's "me we we."
If you support Browne, it's "me me me me me."
And, if you support Nader, it's "we we we."
All candidates can be judged based on this highly scientific scale. And all elections truly do boil down to it.
Since you obviously just wanted to flame the President and the Vice President with unsubstantiated claims (how the hell did you get modded up so high?), I will respond in kind (but with evidence).
Case in point (I would type more, but I'm lazy):
a) Murdering hundreds of citizens who have been poorly represented in their trial, AND saying something to the effect of "The legal system in Texas is top-notch." b) Murdering people who are classified as "mentally retarded." c) Possibly murdering innocent people.
Evidence:
a) A study by Defender Service, a nonprofit group that represents death row inmates (complete story in yesterday's NY Times)
b) A study by the State Bar of Texas that described the state's legal presentation to the poor as "a national embarrassment." (This study was done a month ago, and again reported in the Times)
c) The moratorium on executions declared in Illinois by the Republican governor after maybe 5 people on death row were innocent.
Although this reply isn't directly related to your original post, this is the best place I could find for it.
I hear politicians and citizens say that they fear the government and it's getting too big. They usually suggest a reduction in the number of government subsidized programs etc.
I, too, fear the government, but at the same time, I also fear businesses. Unlike the government, businesses are only accountable to their shareholders. Companies are much more likely to exploit their workers than a democratic government impinging on citizens' rights. In other words, I fear people who are dedicated to money more than those dedicated to power. With elected officials, they are just that: elected; they can be easily removed.
And since we can't practically limit the power of industry and government at the same time (regulation by government v. no regulation at all) I would choose the government over industry any day.
That is why I can't stand libertarian ideas about the market fixing all social ills. But at the same time, I realize that free markets are more successful than planned markets.
Engineering and comp. sci. people should not be the only people on the team. Most importantly, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS who know privacy cases. The techie people should explain to the lawyers how the thing works. Then the lawyers should report any violations of case law.
-Andrew
"Music is a service to its consumers, not a product. I live on tips. Giving music away for free is what artists have been doing naturally all their lives." This quote is the epitome of every argument made in support MP3s, Napster, etc. The simple fact is, music is NOT a commodity. It is entertainment, and therefore, a service. Selling recorded CDs does not make any sense. Entertainers should only make money from tips (such as admission fees for concerts). As for record labels, hopefully that business will dry up as artists find ways to communicate directly with fans.
I'm surprised that there this trolls on any one topic. It just goes to show that/.'s audience can't deal with any controversial real world matter not pertaining to computers/censorship/etc. I'm also quite surprised at the amount of xenophobia and homophobia sentiment on/. which tends to be a liberal place (anti-filtering, anti-censorship, etc). Finally, I'm disappointed that the moderators failed to do their job and relegate all the trolls to "-1." -Andrew
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly; it's a dying market.
That was my immediate thought when I first read the headline declaring Wikipedia "complete and accurate free content encyclopedia." It's complete, but accurate free, which I thought was editor-speak for error-filled.
I agree. Slashdot editors only care about sensationalist stories to make money (or maybe to push some other agenda). Who else thinks we need new editors with brains, who can spell, and who try to be objective?
/.ers I will not editorialize." I then linked to the article.
I submitted this article but it got rejected. Here is what I submitted:
2003-04-04 17:10:55 Arab-American Software Engineer Held as Material Witness (articles,doj) (rejected)
In the description I said something to the effect of "Unlike most
You complain about this, yet you do not complain that NetPrint costs 10 cents per page? Sounds like you have sour grapes about Cornell/Ithaca.
I live off-campus so this does not affect me at all, but I doubt Cornell is using any "shady" business practices. They pay lots of money for bandwith that is wasted on ESPN.com and KaZaa. It makes sense to bill those who abuse the system. Would you prefer that they raise the ResNet fee again or tuition?
If I were going to complain about a Cornell policy, I would bitch about their absurd prices for "a-la-carte" meals. It costs at least $6.50 for a wrap and juice!
-Andrew '05
It's destined to fail because you have to stand.
Although I disagree that the public has substantially more power than they exercise, your point is moot because the public never exercises this "power." Less than 50% of the population votes, and American people in general are apathetic. Regardless, I think the idea of a revolution in a 1st-world country is over. It's just not plausible.
Teinanmen Square was successful because the students were unarmed and the huge media exposure.
"Photography, video, and the Internet have changed, and will change, the power of the tank."
Yes, but what about what comes after (technologically) the tank?
You seem very idealistic. Media and information are important and all, but nothing overcomes brute-force. The United States obviously does not have a liberty-loving populace and I don't think arms will help them in any way to defend their rights.
The ballot box trumps the ammo box.
As far as I know (please forgive my ignorance) tanks did not exist in the 18th century.
"The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power."
Am I the only one who laughed at this sentence? Honestly, private ownership of guns would in no way give citizens more power than the government. Think: a militia with handguns and rifles versus a military with tanks. If citizens really did hold more power than the government, then there would be no government and we would be in a state of nature.
You must be a freshman because last year there were claims of arrests and lawsuits because of piracy. We also got the same emails telling everyone in the dorms not to allow uploading. (Think: lots of stupid people never turning off Kazaa or their computers = lots of wasted electricity and bandwith). Also, be careful when downloading lots of data. If you download something like more than 20 gigs in a few days you get put on a shit-list.
Adios.
1) Everyone in Congress agrees that farmers should be protected from the estate tax.
2) Those who support the estate tax also say that the minimum estate worth must also be raised. (i.e. the trigger should be raised.)
3) Given 1) and 2), most of the posts that argue AGAINST the estate tax are essentially moot.
4) A simple reason to support the estate tax: to prevent another family like the Bush's (or the Kennedy's for that matter) from amassing power or wealth through inheritence and NOT merit.
"the people trashing Bush's plan seem to have no knowledge of economics."
His whole post is utter flamebait.
Despite that, I will counter his argument. I point you to Paul Krugman, a leading economist at Princeton. You can read his columns in the New York Times.
Why does this country (U.S.) need nationalist pride? It seems to me that American pride has always led to the obliteration of another culture.
"Man has advanced beyond that to educate himself in the areas of the arts and sciences and to create new tools and technology."
h tml .
This is incorrect. Research has shown that other animals, whales for instance, have a similar understanding and appreciation of music. I point you to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/09/science/09MUSI.
Indeed, some species have advanced past "fscking and eating and sleeping."
That Linda Bowles column is blantantly false. Gore graduated Harvard summa cum laude and Bush graduated Yale with a mediocre gpa. Gore dropped out of both divinity and law school, but maybe that reflects a change in his life goals?
Not enough time to comment on the rest of your comment.
Right...
The market will fix all social ills...
The market will prevent drug companies from selling untested or unsafe drugs...
The market will prevent food companies from selling potentially dangerous food...
The market will fix all the problems with HMO's and other insurance agencies...
The market will fix the undue influence of corporate money on legislation...
The market will fix the massive disparity in education spending between a rich town and a poor town...
Right... (ala Austin Powers)
Maybe the market will fix these problems, but it will always be after-the-fact.
"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated"
You are saying that you would vote for someone who is a fool over someone who would study the facts. Interesting.
Do you know any US history? The portentious Good and malicious Evil never sleep. The robber barrons of the early 20th century never ended their conquest for riches, at the expense of the masses, until the trust-busting of Theodore Roosevelt and other presidents.
On a different note: People who argue against socialism and communism always say that humans are naturally greedy. And as a result, the two economic systems will always fail. Now you are saying that greed can be satiated. But how can this be if greed is an innate human quality?
IMHO, those who "torment us for our own good" and the "robber barrons" are equally evil.
"Why should we leave any tax surplus in Washington?"
h tml
Because our nation is in DEBT and we need to eliminate it. Because our nation might need to have that money in a financial crisis occurs. Because we need to have responsible finanicial policy.
But don't just take it from me. How about Paul Krugman, a noted economist and columnist of the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/18/opinion/18KRUG.
Rep. Istook also wrote a bill (it failed) to protect a student's "right to pray in school," but it was so vague that it clearly smashed threw the wall between church and state. It was a really disgusting bill. It would have allowed student led prayer sessions at events such as football games (recently ruled unconstitutional).
Check the ACLU's website for more info.
www.aclu.org
(Sorry to post to this thread. I couldn't find any other good place.)
So here is my sweeping generalization:
Everyone's opinions/voting preferences are simply based on how greedy they are. That is, who comes first? Me or We?
So, if you support W., it's "me me me."
If you support Gore, it's "me we we."
If you support Browne, it's "me me me me me."
And, if you support Nader, it's "we we we."
All candidates can be judged based on this highly scientific scale. And all elections truly do boil down to it.
Since you obviously just wanted to flame the President and the Vice President with unsubstantiated claims (how the hell did you get modded up so high?), I will respond in kind (but with evidence).
Case in point (I would type more, but I'm lazy):
a) Murdering hundreds of citizens who have been poorly represented in their trial, AND saying something to the effect of "The legal system in Texas is top-notch."
b) Murdering people who are classified as "mentally retarded."
c) Possibly murdering innocent people.
Evidence:
a) A study by Defender Service, a nonprofit group that represents death row inmates (complete story in yesterday's NY Times)
b) A study by the State Bar of Texas that described the state's legal presentation to the poor as "a national embarrassment." (This study was done a month ago, and again reported in the Times)
c) The moratorium on executions declared in Illinois by the Republican governor after maybe 5 people on death row were innocent.
Although this reply isn't directly related to your original post, this is the best place I could find for it.
I hear politicians and citizens say that they fear the government and it's getting too big. They usually suggest a reduction in the number of government subsidized programs etc.
I, too, fear the government, but at the same time, I also fear businesses. Unlike the government, businesses are only accountable to their shareholders. Companies are much more likely to exploit their workers than a democratic government impinging on citizens' rights. In other words, I fear people who are dedicated to money more than those dedicated to power. With elected officials, they are just that: elected; they can be easily removed.
And since we can't practically limit the power of industry and government at the same time (regulation by government v. no regulation at all) I would choose the government over industry any day.
That is why I can't stand libertarian ideas about the market fixing all social ills. But at the same time, I realize that free markets are more successful than planned markets.
Engineering and comp. sci. people should not be the only people on the team. Most importantly, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS who know privacy cases. The techie people should explain to the lawyers how the thing works. Then the lawyers should report any violations of case law. -Andrew
"Music is a service to its consumers, not a product. I live on tips. Giving music away for free is what artists have been doing naturally all their lives." This quote is the epitome of every argument made in support MP3s, Napster, etc. The simple fact is, music is NOT a commodity. It is entertainment, and therefore, a service. Selling recorded CDs does not make any sense. Entertainers should only make money from tips (such as admission fees for concerts). As for record labels, hopefully that business will dry up as artists find ways to communicate directly with fans.
I'm surprised that there this trolls on any one topic. It just goes to show that /.'s audience can't deal with any controversial real world matter not pertaining to computers/censorship/etc. I'm also quite surprised at the amount of xenophobia and homophobia sentiment on /. which tends to be a liberal place (anti-filtering, anti-censorship, etc). Finally, I'm disappointed that the moderators failed to do their job and relegate all the trolls to "-1." -Andrew