Worse than that -- it was as pro-SCO and anti-IBM as Groklaw is pro-IBM and anti-SCO, except that it lacked the millions of eyeballs peering for corrections and errors.
It was biased without evidence to back up its bias.
PJ may be a shill, but she's at least a shill with an eye for evidence, facts, that sorta thing.
Hell... she's given IBM the benefit of some rock-solid research for their case. Can't gripe about that.
You're right, of course. I agreed with what you said from your first post. I would like to see every dictator and civil rights abuse ended, to the best of our ability.
I would also like to see that we maintain the high standard of civil liberties for ourselves that we have set for others to see and follow. We all of course must look at our navels in the shower, so we can make sure we got all of the gunk and lint that tends to gather there. We should keep ourselves clean figuratively, because the VOA broadcasts we're beaming to China and elsewhere give us a high standard to maintain.
You do not want desirable immigrants like my wife coming here from China and saying, as she did last week, that the VOA propaganda was full of lies when it talked about freedom of speech.
On a more important note, your intelligence comes through clearly in your posts. You've made points I myself hadn't considered. When you find someone who disagrees with you, is it worthwhile to insult them? If someone told you that you were "guilty of navel gazing and selfishness," would you be at all inclined to see his point of view? Of course not! Don't wreck a great point by offending your audience.
That's certainly true for me. In fact, I'd go further: This is the best job I've had since grad school.
I think we're more likely to leave a poorly-managed company. What's more, in the post-tech bust, the companies that are still alive are more likely to have good management; they needed it to survive. The result: The jobs that remain are better jobs.
The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.
Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through wellestablished distribution mechanisms.
It's exactly what artists and the EFF have been saying all along.
"The worst part about something like this is that the neo-left needs to be a group that places evidence and facts before ideology."
I'll see your comment and raise you:
1. EVERY individual and group should place evidence and facts before ideology.
2. ALMOST ALL individuals and groups instead pick their ideology first and look for evidence that supports it (or weakens competing ideologies) later.
3. ALL individuals and groups can see those who disagree with them doing #2.
4. ALMOST NONE can see themselves doing #2, even as they do it.
Re:That's the goal
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"what's sad about it from my perspective (my hair grows grey and my knees aren't quite what they used to be) is that so many bright, energetic young people just don't recognize this fundamental truth."
Yup.
I'm really lucky in that right now, I work for a company that is well managed.
We got a great kid, wet behind the ears, fresh out of grad school. After a couple of months, he asked me if I had any advice.
I told him he needed to take it easier.
I learned this lesson at my last job. I kinda felt I was a lazy worker, so when I got the last job offer and they told me I'd need to work hard, I went with it. We all worked ridiculous hours, and the company failed.
What I learned from that experience was that I got more done working a 40 hour week and enjoying my time outside of work than working 60+ hours and working weekends. I actually got more accomplished that way, because my head was clear.
This new company recognizes that, too. We're all lucky that they do; not only are we happier, it increases our odds of success. And now that I've got a position of some leadership, I want to pass that wisdom along to my co-workers.
It's one thing to work 60+ hours a week for a brief couple of weeks to meet a deadline -- it's something else to do it all the time. Eventually, the return on investment drops to below what you had before.
That's probably true that the ones who are getting CS degrees are doing it because they love it. I don't think that the average American was ever going for the CS degree anyway. When I was in school in the early 90's, I was surrounded by foreign students.
Remember when the dot-com bubble burst? A lot of those folks were here on H1B visas. When their companies disappeared, so did their visas -- and they had to go back home. Suddenly there's this big shift to outsourcing. I wonder if there's a connection?;)
Right now, the startup I work for can't find qualified engineers. We'll hire anyone who's qualified. Not only are we not finding qualified citizens, we can't even find qualified permanent residents. We HAVE to sponsor people's visas, because INS is battening down the hatches -- hey, one of these engineers might be a terrorist! Right. One of these atheist Chinese engineers might be an Islamic extremist. Riiiiiight....
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Stressed out at work BECAUSE WE CAN'T FIND FUCKING QUALIFIED HELP...
Well, no, Microsoft.com (the hardcore gay porn movie) could be the touching, heart-rending tale of a young closeted male with great looks but a small member and erectile dysfunction who, through friends on the internet, discovers the joy of playing for the other team as a catcher.
Exactly. The Puritan tradition remains. It went into remission partially during the 18th and early 19th century, but came back full force with the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th century. It then went into remission again in the 1920s, but the Depression and WW2 helped to get it re-established so that sexual moral standards were very oppressive during the 50's and 60's, when TV became ubiquitous.
Such a sensible post from someone who considers me a foe. Makes me wonder what I said to piss you off.
"But, did you send it, on honest-to-god paper, with a real signature at the bottom, your home address, phone number, etc (to show you as a constituent) included?"
You have proven yourself to be a man of noble intent. Your support of the DREAM Act alone shows that you care about individuals, and that you care about the future of America. I am certain that your support of INDUCE is also backed by noble intent; it is wrong for people to steal from the works of others.
On that note, let's examine the business practices of the corporations that have asked you to help them. They frequently state that they are here to protect artists; if that's so, why do artists who work for them revile them? They say that they are here to prevent theft; if so, why do artists accuse them of stealing from artists? They say that P2P applications have no legitimate uses; if that's so, why do struggling independent artists -- those not affiliated with the RIAA's member corporations -- embrace P2P applications as their last, best hope?
I write to you as an artist, and on behalf of artists, whose livelihood is threatened not by P2P apps, but by INDUCE. The RIAA is not speaking for me; it is my competition. Their true purpose is not to protect me, but to lock me out.
Remember how hard you worked to secure digital law for the RIAA, so that they could distribute digital content safely? And how afterwards, they never did it -- except for a few third-rate websites? Instead, they used the law to lock out the means we independent artists use to promote our music -- P2P applications like Napster! These file-sharing applications give me a huge audience and distribution mechanism, so that I can find new fans without the need for the RIAA. That is the REAL reason for laws like INDUCE -- it's not about theft; it is about CONTROL.
What protection is there for legitimate uses of P2P software? What is there in this bill to ensure I can still promote my music without having to sell my soul to the RIAA's member companies using the latest in technology?
If you would like to discuss this issue more, please give me a call on my cell phone any time at (redacted). I believe that you would not promote a bill that would hurt America and its future. I think that if you understood my point of view, you would understand why I feel this bill, in its current form, may be very dangerous to America's future.
Brad Silverberg is close to realizing the truth, and yet he doesn't quite say it:
"Another aspect to that, which is an area I think Microsoft is also struggling with, which is when you are as successful and dominant as they are, how do you continue to foster that ecosystem? What really propelled Microsoft Windows success was an ecosystem that they created that allowed other people to benefit from your success.... Now that Microsoft has expanded into so many different areas there is reluctance from some developers to continue to invest in a Microsoft platform because they wonder how do they build a business? How does it become their business and not Microsoft's business?"
This is what OSS is doing for companies -- like my current company: If we have a need, we can grab an OSS project that gets us halfway there. Then, the contributions we make, we give back to the community. The licensing of the product through the LGPL is much easier to deal with and cheaper than finding some proprietary vendor, and we don't have to get on our knees and beg for the source code to adapt it to our use.
Microsoft's problem is that they benefitted from a culture, which has now changed. You can't change a culture back. Neither Silverberg nor Microsoft have yet figured out that they cannot compete with OSS and win. They can only embrace it.
You're right, and I'm wrong. I hit "Submit" first and then proofread, rather than the other way around.
Since these rights are so rarely legally protected, and even when legally protected frequently abused due to circumstance (Evil terrorists/jews/americans/eurasians!), it's easily tempting to think they're priveleges. And of course, everyone agrees with free speech as long as they agree with what's being said -- harder to find are those who agree with free speech when they don't like what's being said at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse than that -- it was as pro-SCO and anti-IBM as Groklaw is pro-IBM and anti-SCO, except that it lacked the millions of eyeballs peering for corrections and errors.
It was biased without evidence to back up its bias.
PJ may be a shill, but she's at least a shill with an eye for evidence, facts, that sorta thing.
Hell... she's given IBM the benefit of some rock-solid research for their case. Can't gripe about that.
I mean, that's kind of like being a Jedi in the Star Wars MMORPG -- the one who gets to do all the cool stuff that saves the ship.
Although I think the role will probably be taken by another Slashdotter. Dammit.
You're right, of course. I agreed with what you said from your first post. I would like to see every dictator and civil rights abuse ended, to the best of our ability.
I would also like to see that we maintain the high standard of civil liberties for ourselves that we have set for others to see and follow. We all of course must look at our navels in the shower, so we can make sure we got all of the gunk and lint that tends to gather there. We should keep ourselves clean figuratively, because the VOA broadcasts we're beaming to China and elsewhere give us a high standard to maintain.
You do not want desirable immigrants like my wife coming here from China and saying, as she did last week, that the VOA propaganda was full of lies when it talked about freedom of speech.
On a more important note, your intelligence comes through clearly in your posts. You've made points I myself hadn't considered. When you find someone who disagrees with you, is it worthwhile to insult them? If someone told you that you were "guilty of navel gazing and selfishness," would you be at all inclined to see his point of view? Of course not! Don't wreck a great point by offending your audience.
That's certainly true for me. In fact, I'd go further: This is the best job I've had since grad school.
I think we're more likely to leave a poorly-managed company. What's more, in the post-tech bust, the companies that are still alive are more likely to have good management; they needed it to survive. The result: The jobs that remain are better jobs.
"Why is it that when we talk to God, we call it praying, but when God talks to us, we are schizophrenic?"
--Lily Tomlin
It's exactly what artists and the EFF have been saying all along.
"The worst part about something like this is that the neo-left needs to be a group that places evidence and facts before ideology."
I'll see your comment and raise you:
1. EVERY individual and group should place evidence and facts before ideology.
2. ALMOST ALL individuals and groups instead pick their ideology first and look for evidence that supports it (or weakens competing ideologies) later.
3. ALL individuals and groups can see those who disagree with them doing #2.
4. ALMOST NONE can see themselves doing #2, even as they do it.
"what's sad about it from my perspective (my hair grows grey and my knees aren't quite what they used to be) is that so many bright, energetic young people just don't recognize this fundamental truth."
Yup.
I'm really lucky in that right now, I work for a company that is well managed.
We got a great kid, wet behind the ears, fresh out of grad school. After a couple of months, he asked me if I had any advice.
I told him he needed to take it easier.
I learned this lesson at my last job. I kinda felt I was a lazy worker, so when I got the last job offer and they told me I'd need to work hard, I went with it. We all worked ridiculous hours, and the company failed.
What I learned from that experience was that I got more done working a 40 hour week and enjoying my time outside of work than working 60+ hours and working weekends. I actually got more accomplished that way, because my head was clear.
This new company recognizes that, too. We're all lucky that they do; not only are we happier, it increases our odds of success. And now that I've got a position of some leadership, I want to pass that wisdom along to my co-workers.
It's one thing to work 60+ hours a week for a brief couple of weeks to meet a deadline -- it's something else to do it all the time. Eventually, the return on investment drops to below what you had before.
"Just out of curiosity, what type of engineer's are so hard to find now?"
engineers who've worked with ad hoc wireless mesh networks
I know, but I didn't know how many people would understand me if I'd said "Han." So that's why I specifically said "atheist Chinese." :)
That's probably true that the ones who are getting CS degrees are doing it because they love it. I don't think that the average American was ever going for the CS degree anyway. When I was in school in the early 90's, I was surrounded by foreign students.
;)
Remember when the dot-com bubble burst? A lot of those folks were here on H1B visas. When their companies disappeared, so did their visas -- and they had to go back home. Suddenly there's this big shift to outsourcing. I wonder if there's a connection?
Right now, the startup I work for can't find qualified engineers. We'll hire anyone who's qualified. Not only are we not finding qualified citizens, we can't even find qualified permanent residents. We HAVE to sponsor people's visas, because INS is battening down the hatches -- hey, one of these engineers might be a terrorist! Right. One of these atheist Chinese engineers might be an Islamic extremist. Riiiiiight....
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Stressed out at work BECAUSE WE CAN'T FIND FUCKING QUALIFIED HELP...
Oh, I wouldn't call it "thought..."
I remember going through and seeing a ton of negative reviews; now they seem to be all gone.
What happened?
Well, no, Microsoft.com (the hardcore gay porn movie) could be the touching, heart-rending tale of a young closeted male with great looks but a small member and erectile dysfunction who, through friends on the internet, discovers the joy of playing for the other team as a catcher.
Still sucking away quarters in laundromats worldwide.
Exactly. The Puritan tradition remains. It went into remission partially during the 18th and early 19th century, but came back full force with the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th century. It then went into remission again in the 1920s, but the Depression and WW2 helped to get it re-established so that sexual moral standards were very oppressive during the 50's and 60's, when TV became ubiquitous.
Such a sensible post from someone who considers me a foe. Makes me wonder what I said to piss you off.
710 comments so far, and no sign of letting up. :)
That, and laptops. :)
Constipation used to be a problem. Now it's a blessing in disguise...
"But, did you send it, on honest-to-god paper, with a real signature at the bottom, your home address, phone number, etc (to show you as a constituent) included?"
Through his web page.
Mr. Hatch,
You have proven yourself to be a man of noble intent. Your support of the DREAM Act alone shows that you care about individuals, and that you care about the future of America. I am certain that your support of INDUCE is also backed by noble intent; it is wrong for people to steal from the works of others.
On that note, let's examine the business practices of the corporations that have asked you to help them. They frequently state that they are here to protect artists; if that's so, why do artists who work for them revile them? They say that they are here to prevent theft; if so, why do artists accuse them of stealing from artists? They say that P2P applications have no legitimate uses; if that's so, why do struggling independent artists -- those not affiliated with the RIAA's member corporations -- embrace P2P applications as their last, best hope?
I write to you as an artist, and on behalf of artists, whose livelihood is threatened not by P2P apps, but by INDUCE. The RIAA is not speaking for me; it is my competition. Their true purpose is not to protect me, but to lock me out.
Remember how hard you worked to secure digital law for the RIAA, so that they could distribute digital content safely? And how afterwards, they never did it -- except for a few third-rate websites? Instead, they used the law to lock out the means we independent artists use to promote our music -- P2P applications like Napster! These file-sharing applications give me a huge audience and distribution mechanism, so that I can find new fans without the need for the RIAA. That is the REAL reason for laws like INDUCE -- it's not about theft; it is about CONTROL.
What protection is there for legitimate uses of P2P software? What is there in this bill to ensure I can still promote my music without having to sell my soul to the RIAA's member companies using the latest in technology?
If you would like to discuss this issue more, please give me a call on my cell phone any time at (redacted). I believe that you would not promote a bill that would hurt America and its future. I think that if you understood my point of view, you would understand why I feel this bill, in its current form, may be very dangerous to America's future.
... use LEGITIMATE Escrow.
Use eBay's recommended Escrow sites only.
http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/escrow.html
:)
Step 1:
The buyer and seller agree to the terms and details of the transaction.
Step 2:
The buyer sends payment to Escrow.com. Payment is verified and deposited into a trust account.
Step 3:
The seller ships the merchandise to the buyer, knowing that the buyer's payment is secured.
Step 4:
The buyer accepts the merchandise after having the opportunity to inspect it.
Step 5:
Escrow.com pays the seller after all conditions of the transaction are met.
If escrow is not available, don't bid.
If you sell, use escrow.
Escrow = happy endings.
Is lifting elves anything like tossing dwarves?
Brad Silverberg is close to realizing the truth, and yet he doesn't quite say it:
... Now that Microsoft has expanded into so many different areas there is reluctance from some developers to continue to invest in a Microsoft platform because they wonder how do they build a business? How does it become their business and not Microsoft's business?"
"Another aspect to that, which is an area I think Microsoft is also struggling with, which is when you are as successful and dominant as they are, how do you continue to foster that ecosystem? What really propelled Microsoft Windows success was an ecosystem that they created that allowed other people to benefit from your success.
This is what OSS is doing for companies -- like my current company: If we have a need, we can grab an OSS project that gets us halfway there. Then, the contributions we make, we give back to the community. The licensing of the product through the LGPL is much easier to deal with and cheaper than finding some proprietary vendor, and we don't have to get on our knees and beg for the source code to adapt it to our use.
Microsoft's problem is that they benefitted from a culture, which has now changed. You can't change a culture back. Neither Silverberg nor Microsoft have yet figured out that they cannot compete with OSS and win. They can only embrace it.
You're right, and I'm wrong. I hit "Submit" first and then proofread, rather than the other way around.
Since these rights are so rarely legally protected, and even when legally protected frequently abused due to circumstance (Evil terrorists/jews/americans/eurasians!), it's easily tempting to think they're priveleges. And of course, everyone agrees with free speech as long as they agree with what's being said -- harder to find are those who agree with free speech when they don't like what's being said at all.