Although it seems clear that Mr. Henson statements where intended as a joke, they also where bigoted, intolerant, and highly offensive.
Crimes are committed daily due to religious intolerance (sometimes, too often, here at home in the US). Those who commit these crimes often mock the validity of their victim's religion.
Mr. Henson's right to free speech should be defended, as our free speech rights depend on it. We should not defend what he wrote. We must condemn what he wrote.
Which $cientologist was sent online with to post this?
In more seriousness, though, while I don't do the whole God thing, I'm not necessarily about telling God people off either. I'm mostly for the "don't hurt them, they won't hurt me" viewpoint. However, Scientology goes a bit too far in their practices of fair game for me to ignore them. Plus, while they may be federally recognized as a religion, I personally see them as nothing more than a business, and hence I will treat them as I would treat most other corporations in America: with contempt.
Besides, as others have said above, this California law seems mighty stupid in its wording [wait, is it still ok to think that a bill is stupid in America? or will I get thrown in jail? am I allowed to read the bill? or is it copyrighted?]. Scientology claims religious persecution, whereas all I've seen from them is religious extortion. I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere, because why is it the government will go after some cults with weapons blazing, yet we the people have to take it up the ass from Scientology's lawyers in the courtroom?
C'mon Microsoft, just what the hell are you trying to accomplish here? What intelligent person would take it, on your word, that Linux sucks as a retail/hospitality POS system? Are you authoritative on the subject because, um, you sell a competing product? The whole idea of Microsoft p1mping Windows in the POS while trashing all of Linux' faults is ridiculous! Of course that's what they're gonna say.
Jesus, next thing you know the Ford dealer is gonna try and tell me why I shouldn't buy a Honda because of its faults.
Next: State clearly that this is your corporate desktop prototype that will be ready in three month and will be replacing all M$ shit! Make it very clear that you where just waiting for them to set totally unreasonable conditions until it's worthwile to scrap M$ entirely.
Wait for reasonable and cheaper offer from M$ to come in.
Ah, now just sit back and wait until M$ sends in the audit team to destroy your company through fines and fees. Then I think you'll be needing the ol' Free Operating System, plus a cardboard box to live in. Microsoft's kind of disgusting that way, huh.
...that we still had some consumer rights in this country. Like the First Sale Doctrine, which states that once a company sells a product to you, you have the right to access that product in any way you see fit (as long as you don't break traditional copyright laws.)
Moreover, I was also under the impression that if a device has any non-infringing utility (e.g., a VCR can legally time-shift programs, in addition to copying movies), then the courts consider it legal. I believe that was established primarily in the Betamax ruling. Hence, if the DeCSS has a legal purpose, which is to enable legal viewing (under First Sale) of legally bought movies, it should not be held accountable to other, less desirable usings of itself. What we have here is the VCR being held to one standard (perhaps because it was backed by a large corporation), while DeCSS is held to a much lower standard (perhaps because the defendents are 'hackers'). It's as if the courts have the dual view that practically no one was going to use the VCR for copying movies (perish the thought!), while, if DeCSS were to be legal, everyone and their lawless mother would be copying DVDs all over the place and then e-mailing them to each other!
Well, all I can say to that is: I don't know. My hatred of the MPAA/RIAA grows daily, and apparently our government has already thrown its hat in with the corporations that donate to it, rather than the people who elect it. I think a new type of civil disobedience needs to arise. The only problem is that Martin Luther King et. al. would have been hard-pressed to continue their civil disobedience if they were getting slapped with $500,000 fines rather than just short jail terms. Note that I'm not saying that public use rights and civil rights are in the same league of importance, merely that the civil disobedience model would be interesting in this situation.
What's up, punkazz? You wanna be l33t by selling shrooms online to other crackers (and -heads)? eDrugTrader is the way to go (They'll also p1mp your mom)
peace
What happens then? Well, nobody really knows. There are a lot of theories, including a Big-Bang type explosion.
I was under the impression that, if a black hole were to shrink below the size necessary to call it such, then it would explode merely in a large outpouring of gamma rays, not necessarily another Big Bang. This gamma ray explosion would be, in an open universe, the only energy source at the far ends of time, due to the evaporation of (for the most part) all matter.
Well, if that depresses you just sit back and think about the hundreds of hundreds of billions of stars out there in space, and the fact that most (if not all) do not have life. Have you ever seen a picture or heard about the Great Wall of galaxies? I suggest you check it out, since it does a good job of making you feel quite insignificant in the grander scheme of things.
I like the fact that we're not special, it doesn't give us any pressure to get something accomplished here.
The way I've always understood it (and the way my astrophysics professors told me as well) was that, with the current known information and such, we live in a flat universe. This is due to the current known value of the density of the universe. If the overall density is greater than something like 8 * 10^-33 g/cm^3(?), than the universe is closed, if it is less than that density, the universe is open, and if it is equal to that density, the universe is flat. Right now we estimate the density to be very close to that number, which suggests flat.
The point in all this is that the density could be anything it could be 300 g/cm^3 or 10^-100 g/cm^3, but it happens to fall very close to the value needed for a flat universe. And with all the possibilities out there, having a flat universe would be like balancing a pencil on its tip. Since, when we check the numbers, it seems like the pencil wobbles a bit(doesn't perfectly stand on its tip, but doesn't fall into open or closed territory very much), it suggests that we do live in a very finely tuned universe.
I can deal with flat though. Its unique. Its got character. If we ever got into a fight with another universe, flat would kick ass!
BZZT. Wrong answer. We could just say lack of morals and leave it at that and be fine, but now we have to go drag the big JC into it and, hey, let's just post the Commandments in school. You know, so we really let the kids know they shouldn't be killing, raping, and pillaging, because that's what kids do at recess these days in our hedonistic society right?
Sorry, but religion's really caused more problems than its ever solved (when applied to culture and society). I don't remember ever seeing on TV an atheist up on a stage, yelling about gays, Jews, etc. to get donations via phone.
I don't want this to be a troll (trying real hard to restrain), and I wouldn't want you to change your whole outlook because of my say-so. Simply go down to your local library (or take a local college course) and get some information on European History from 100 B.C. to the Renaissance. Get some knowledge. Then, if you still want to instill traditional Christian Morals in my kids, we'll talk some more.
By the way...
...watch WWF Smackdown than enrich themselves with the wholesome teachings of Jesus Christ.
...hell yeah I'd rather watch Smackdown, Vinnie Mac just bought the WCW, and I bet that the Rock could lay the Smackdown on any 3 of the Apostles.
I like the above post. It definitely should be modded up.
Redundant comment, I know, but America truly is in a rut when all our Disinguished Gentlemen in the government can do is point at things and say "see? Look, that video game has a gun in it. Get rid of that thing!" What these social dunderheads can't seem to get through their skulls is that guns and violence are part of not only today's society, or American society, or recent history, but are indicative of the slaughter and power struggles dating back to cavemen, to the Roman Empire, to the Crusades, to Alexander's Conquering, to the Witch Trials, to the Third Reich, to Middle Eastern feminist oppresion, to minority oppresion here on our own goddamn country, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Copernican Revolution, to the Communism vs. Democratic struggles, and back to Jerry Falwell talking about getting a children's television show off the air because one of the characters carries a purse!
Jesus H. Flynt! You're not going to solve problems that have been plaguing homo sapiens for all time by banning violence in video games. Good sound bite, bad idea Ashcroft. How about, next time you send your son, or grandson to school, let him know that its not kosher to laugh at the kid who likes Dungeons and Dragons today. How about you teach your kids, or grandkids, that in life sometimes individuality is wanted, is needed, and that good companies and great potential spouses look for intelligent people with insight, not a buffoon who plays right tackle well and gives good swirlies to the AV club!
A world with no power struggle is a fantasy, don't think that I envision that. But if there is one thing that I could teach every single person on earth, it would be respect. Respect my home, respect my right to dissent, repsect my right to like computers, respect the fact that I'll raise my kids the way I damn well please, respect my disdain for religion, respect the fact that I have an intelligent, researched reason why I hate religion, respect my wife, respect the fact that my son is smarter than yours, and I'll respect the fact that your son plays basketball extremely well (maybe I'll even buy tickets to go see him), respect all of these things and more, and I'll forgive any of your opposite opinions or questionable actions (but perhaps not without injecting my own thoughts into the mix).
I certainly think that our governing system is broken. Exactly how many of Slashdot's thousands of readers reasonably expect that they could be President? Be a U.S. Senator? Be the Speaker of the House? Dubya was born into his role just as the Kings of Medieval Europe were born into theirs. That definitely needs to change. We need soccer moms debating their thoughts on bills. We need the former mechanic deciding on defense spending. We need fucking computer literate people deciding on legislation like the DMCA. America needs all those things if it wants to quit deluding itself that our country still runs on the tenets founded upon by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and many others.
I'll get down off the soapbox now, but only if someone else volunteers to pick it up, carry it down to the next street corner, set it down, and proceed to lecture the corner of 5th and Main St., and then someone else lectures all of Broadway St., then someone else lectures Times Square, then Tian'anmen Square, then 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and then Paris, England, Baghdad, Hong Kong, and Hollywood, until a form of government about the people, by the people, and for the people impeach George W. Bush and put someone there who actually cares about the people.
I believe it is quite relevant, as copyright covers much literature that has been written in the 50s-present era which is not in print any more and not making money, but yet still is controlled by publishing conglomerates. I for one have to sit down when I think that, if copyright existed back past the turn of the century (the last one), then I would not be able to read Shakespeare, Norris, or other great authors without paying upwards of $25 for an edition. Ask yourself why A Tale of Two Cities hardcover book at Barnes and Noble is $6, while the new John Grisham book is priced ON SALE at $29.95. Its because anyone can publish A Tale of Two Cities, not because John Grisham is a whole lot better writer.
Of course they are opposed to this. Would you be happy if something you owned could be freely distributed without your permission?
We should stop here and discuss not the jurisdictional ownership of said property (i.e., the fact that the record labels own the music, not the musicians), but the morality of the state of the business. We live in a world where "art" is swept into corners and under rugs based on how much money it will make. You're good at singing stupid pop songs? Here you go: multi-million dollar contract, we own your soul, plus anything you produce while working here. What? You think your "art" is something personal and you want to be able to control what happens to it? Fine, hope life in the indie-records section at the local music store treats you well.
The problem here is not that the general population wants good(?) music for free. The problem which should be flying around Congress is that the copyrights belong to the music industry and not the musicians. Every person who posts that "all you guys talk about freedom, but what you're really doing is stealing from the musicians... blah, blah, blah", all you're really doing is shoveling load of bullshit after load of bullshit so that the members of the RIAA can go on raping budding musicians for all the money they're worth, then dumping them at the side of the road. The only reason that music industry doesn't qualify for anti-trust inquiries is that it is fragmented into (more than) several companies, but since they all come together as the RIAA to get their dirty work done, isn't someone freakin' accountable for their actions? Just when the hell is an entire industry (which itself is just a middleman) going to get its due for screwing not only the consumers of the content but the producers of it as well?
I'm not naive, I see that as long as those filthy vultures have the highest price lobbyists and lawyers, they will get what they want, but music is too old of a human tradition to be controlled in this way. What, in 20 years if I buy a drum set and hit the snare a few times, I'll be sued because one time that beat was used in a song by an artist who at one time was employed by a record label that is part of the RIAA? A bit overboard, I know, but just where the hell is the logical conclusion to the RIAA controlling what we hear?
One last question to those that say Napster rapes musicians: If a musician, under contract from an RIAA label, wanted me (for whatever reason) to be able to have access to his/her music, say, over FTP or Napster, would he/she be sued by their own Record Label for distributing content that they created?
It's hard to get behind the idea that you could invade the collective privacy of football teams and coaches in prime-time television.
Give me a break. The NFL players grunt, curse, and everything else too.
Just wanted to note, also, that I heard surprisingly little swearing during all three XFL games I watched. I don't know if the XFL has some kind of house rule ("Please, please, please don't swear on field") or if these guys just happen to not want to embarass themselves by making it so that the on-field experience has to be bleeped, but in all I was rather impressed on that front.
I like the rhetoric that is, already, now flying around about the XFL. Just what in the hell game were you watching?
The Las Vegas/New York Game: sure it was pretty boring, but I remember a Super Bowl not so long ago that was even more so. I remember some shots of cheerleaders, too. So, I guess when the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders were all the rage we should have been targeting the NFL for corrupting America's youth. I don't have much to say about this one, the play was pretty bad, the cheerleaders were shown off, yeah. However, were you watching when the switched to the...
Orlando/Chicago game? That was an enjoyable game, in my opinion. Didn't so much of the cheerleaders there. I saw a full football stadium and a medium scoring game which went down to the final minutes. If nothing else, it was at least exciting to watch. But the best overall was the...
San Francisco/Los Angelos game: this one was really great. I don't care so much that it wasn't NFL caliber players, I just want to watch a sport that's exciting, and any football game decided by one point with:01 seconds left on the clock by a field goal is damn good in my book. I assume not so many people watched this cause it was on UPN Sunday afternoon during the Pro Bowl (yeah, there's some great football: all the damn pros play a watered-down version of 'catch'), but it was a great game. I wouldn't slam it until I've watched a few more games, if I were you.
Baseball has dozens of corporate tie-ins. Yet I see coverage in the newspaper, on several different TV channels, and on the net.
Football has many different companies paying rights to plaster their image all over every goddamned thing at the stadium, yet I can still go to sportsline.com and get the updates while I'm at work (fine, sportsline is a part of cbs, then I can go to a different site as well).
Etc, etc, etc. The point is that these are sports people want to watch, and the internet outlets (along with other media) set out to inform people about them. Then along comes the olympics with its:
Stupid events that only the athelets and their families are interested in.
The non-existent spirit of the original games (countries compete to see who has the greatest atheletes). These days we have the US vs. Europe, with a couple of other countries thrown in for the sake that even the U.S. or all of Europe can't even find the world's greatest underwater tennis player and pump him/her full of steroids fast enough to grab the gold.
The corruption of the people who decide every goddamned thing about the games. Who cares about site-choosing corruption. I would be interested in seeing what goes on when cbs and nbc get together to bribe the officials about TV rights.
All in all, I care neither way. Let the stupid Olympics crumble. I would be much more interested in watching a World Championship of Track and Field (which is essentially what the original Olympics were about), than see who gets the gold in Shopping, Ping-Pong, Outer Space Street Fighter II Turbo, Water Polo, or MP3 Downloading (whoa, RIAA vs. Olympic committee: I would pay to see that fight).
I feel the need to clarify, as many have mistaken my 'laughing all the way to the bank' statement as empty words slung across the many years at the more 'fortunate' kids in high school. These kids were truly jerks, yes. They were elitist, and stupid, yes. But more importantly nowadays I choose not to dwell on it. Like I said, they are nothing now, and while that in an of itself is sad, I'm not going to show pity for them because they thought sitting in the back of the class making jokes was more important than actually learning. Rereading my original post, it certainly came across more arrogantly and harshly than I intended (and only realized this after I read the thought-provoking replies).
As far as college being the best time of ones life, well, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. Of course for some its true, but I would like to take the (woo-wee) somewhat philosophical approach and say that the best time of your life is whatever particular part of life you're in. I like college right now, but I'm excited to move on and see what else is out there. If I stayed here, afriad that what comes next might not be fun or interesting I'd end up as a grad student (just kidding. poking a little fun. no flames please!)
See, laughing all the way to the bank is not necessarily an end, but a means to an end. And the point at which one stops worrying how they're going to make that next car/house/credit card payment is the point at which one can really start to enjoy what life has to offer. You like nature? Of course you can go to a park whether you're rich or poor, but going on a camping trip somewhere spectaular? Takes a bit more moola. You like working on cars? Well, now instead of that rusted out Vega in the garage you can buy somehting a little nicer to tinker with (not to offend any Vega lovers out there). More importantly, the time with my friends is something special to me, and I take advantage of it whenever I can. More money means more fun trips to, oh, a Milwaukee Brewers game (maybe even a skybox! ROCK!) or fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, or going to Vegas for the weekend.
Essentially, my view is that money in and of itself will not make me happier, but having the resources to go out with my family and friends and do things we all enjoy will. I certainly don't want to be Scrooge McDuck swimming through good coins and such. Of course you're welcome to disagree, but I believe my sentiments are not basely defined here.
...I have finally realized that nothing in high school matters. It may suck while you're there (I know it sucked when I was there) but if you survive it in a fashion somewhat more sanely than the Columbine Killers did there is a whole goddamned world waiting for you! I'm finishing up college in May and I am thoroughly satisfied with the whole college experience. I made a ton of friends who did not judge me based on one look or one conversation, many of whom I will keep in contact with throughout my life.
My point is that all of those asshole jocks and popular kids (at least the ones from my 2000+ student body school) will not amount to anything. Every one of 'em from my school are stuck back in my hellish hometown cause they flunked out of college or never even got there, and now I'm gonna laugh all the way to the bank!
Hence, gettin back to what I want to stress to anyone still there is not to sweat it. Just don't freak out and keep it in the back of your mind that these busters won't be anywhere in 4 years; you most likely will.
Most importantly, keep a positive attitude, as I know that I was very bitter in high school, whereas now I am looking forward to the rest of my post-college life.
...JonKatz has a point his time. Perhaps the point that resounds most is that, if politicans xcared, there are so many actual things they could be championing to help the children rather than cursing the phantom menace that is the Net. Improve education, subsidize more education, etc. If we(as a country) get educated, I would expect to see corresponding drops in crime and drops in unemployment.
But, in election years I suppose its more important to get the vote, while in non-election years its more important to remind people what you've done the past 4 years to get their vote again.
Unfortunately, this problem remains to be resolved and more and mroe people don't vote. Well hell, I'm voting for Nader and I don't even know shit about him. At least I know my vote didn't go towards keeping the current power-grabbing cycle perpetuate.
I know that when I graduated from high school, the counselors were saying for everybody that wanted to be "assured a job", they should definately go into IT/Com Sci programs, but now that I'm ready to graduate soon, I am thinking more and more often that the job market may be slowing down, since any jabroni with brains ran out and got their MCSE, and now may be sitting in cushy IT jobs while I sweated out college for 4 years learning things like compiler design, and how to program in MIPS RISC assembly.
Meanwhile, the reason that many people out of college may not be as intelligent as those who have been in the profession a while is that (as I know from personal experience) many have to work menial jobs while in college that may have no computer exposure in order to simply pay rent. In my college town, the mainly accessable jobs for students are service oriented, not technology oriented. I am very worried that I may not have the job skills to offer an employer that another student who did not have to work through school has from sitting in his dorm room and playing around with his computer for 4 years.
Essentially, this is a problem of self-improvement, for the market will evetually evolve to a point where only the best and brightest will be tolerated in positions of power.
Slashdot Mirror
Which $cientologist was sent online with to post this?
In more seriousness, though, while I don't do the whole God thing, I'm not necessarily about telling God people off either. I'm mostly for the "don't hurt them, they won't hurt me" viewpoint. However, Scientology goes a bit too far in their practices of fair game for me to ignore them. Plus, while they may be federally recognized as a religion, I personally see them as nothing more than a business, and hence I will treat them as I would treat most other corporations in America: with contempt.
Besides, as others have said above, this California law seems mighty stupid in its wording [wait, is it still ok to think that a bill is stupid in America? or will I get thrown in jail? am I allowed to read the bill? or is it copyrighted?]. Scientology claims religious persecution, whereas all I've seen from them is religious extortion. I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere, because why is it the government will go after some cults with weapons blazing, yet we the people have to take it up the ass from Scientology's lawyers in the courtroom?
C'mon Microsoft, just what the hell are you trying to accomplish here? What intelligent person would take it, on your word, that Linux sucks as a retail/hospitality POS system? Are you authoritative on the subject because, um, you sell a competing product? The whole idea of Microsoft p1mping Windows in the POS while trashing all of Linux' faults is ridiculous! Of course that's what they're gonna say.
Jesus, next thing you know the Ford dealer is gonna try and tell me why I shouldn't buy a Honda because of its faults.
Next: State clearly that this is your corporate desktop prototype that will be ready in three month and will be replacing all M$ shit! Make it very clear that you where just waiting for them to set totally unreasonable conditions until it's worthwile to scrap M$ entirely.
Wait for reasonable and cheaper offer from M$ to come in.
Ah, now just sit back and wait until M$ sends in the audit team to destroy your company through fines and fees. Then I think you'll be needing the ol' Free Operating System, plus a cardboard box to live in. Microsoft's kind of disgusting that way, huh.
Moreover, I was also under the impression that if a device has any non-infringing utility (e.g., a VCR can legally time-shift programs, in addition to copying movies), then the courts consider it legal. I believe that was established primarily in the Betamax ruling. Hence, if the DeCSS has a legal purpose, which is to enable legal viewing (under First Sale) of legally bought movies, it should not be held accountable to other, less desirable usings of itself. What we have here is the VCR being held to one standard (perhaps because it was backed by a large corporation), while DeCSS is held to a much lower standard (perhaps because the defendents are 'hackers'). It's as if the courts have the dual view that practically no one was going to use the VCR for copying movies (perish the thought!), while, if DeCSS were to be legal, everyone and their lawless mother would be copying DVDs all over the place and then e-mailing them to each other!
Well, all I can say to that is: I don't know. My hatred of the MPAA/RIAA grows daily, and apparently our government has already thrown its hat in with the corporations that donate to it, rather than the people who elect it. I think a new type of civil disobedience needs to arise. The only problem is that Martin Luther King et. al. would have been hard-pressed to continue their civil disobedience if they were getting slapped with $500,000 fines rather than just short jail terms. Note that I'm not saying that public use rights and civil rights are in the same league of importance, merely that the civil disobedience model would be interesting in this situation.
What's up, punkazz? You wanna be l33t by selling shrooms online to other crackers (and -heads)? eDrugTrader is the way to go (They'll also p1mp your mom)
peace
I was under the impression that, if a black hole were to shrink below the size necessary to call it such, then it would explode merely in a large outpouring of gamma rays, not necessarily another Big Bang. This gamma ray explosion would be, in an open universe, the only energy source at the far ends of time, due to the evaporation of (for the most part) all matter.
I like the fact that we're not special, it doesn't give us any pressure to get something accomplished here.
The point in all this is that the density could be anything it could be 300 g/cm^3 or 10^-100 g/cm^3, but it happens to fall very close to the value needed for a flat universe. And with all the possibilities out there, having a flat universe would be like balancing a pencil on its tip. Since, when we check the numbers, it seems like the pencil wobbles a bit(doesn't perfectly stand on its tip, but doesn't fall into open or closed territory very much), it suggests that we do live in a very finely tuned universe.
I can deal with flat though. Its unique. Its got character. If we ever got into a fight with another universe, flat would kick ass!
BZZT. Wrong answer. We could just say lack of morals and leave it at that and be fine, but now we have to go drag the big JC into it and, hey, let's just post the Commandments in school. You know, so we really let the kids know they shouldn't be killing, raping, and pillaging, because that's what kids do at recess these days in our hedonistic society right?
Sorry, but religion's really caused more problems than its ever solved (when applied to culture and society). I don't remember ever seeing on TV an atheist up on a stage, yelling about gays, Jews, etc. to get donations via phone.
I don't want this to be a troll (trying real hard to restrain), and I wouldn't want you to change your whole outlook because of my say-so. Simply go down to your local library (or take a local college course) and get some information on European History from 100 B.C. to the Renaissance. Get some knowledge. Then, if you still want to instill traditional Christian Morals in my kids, we'll talk some more.
By the way...
Redundant comment, I know, but America truly is in a rut when all our Disinguished Gentlemen in the government can do is point at things and say "see? Look, that video game has a gun in it. Get rid of that thing!" What these social dunderheads can't seem to get through their skulls is that guns and violence are part of not only today's society, or American society, or recent history, but are indicative of the slaughter and power struggles dating back to cavemen, to the Roman Empire, to the Crusades, to Alexander's Conquering, to the Witch Trials, to the Third Reich, to Middle Eastern feminist oppresion, to minority oppresion here on our own goddamn country, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Copernican Revolution, to the Communism vs. Democratic struggles, and back to Jerry Falwell talking about getting a children's television show off the air because one of the characters carries a purse!
Jesus H. Flynt! You're not going to solve problems that have been plaguing homo sapiens for all time by banning violence in video games. Good sound bite, bad idea Ashcroft. How about, next time you send your son, or grandson to school, let him know that its not kosher to laugh at the kid who likes Dungeons and Dragons today. How about you teach your kids, or grandkids, that in life sometimes individuality is wanted, is needed, and that good companies and great potential spouses look for intelligent people with insight, not a buffoon who plays right tackle well and gives good swirlies to the AV club!
A world with no power struggle is a fantasy, don't think that I envision that. But if there is one thing that I could teach every single person on earth, it would be respect. Respect my home, respect my right to dissent, repsect my right to like computers, respect the fact that I'll raise my kids the way I damn well please, respect my disdain for religion, respect the fact that I have an intelligent, researched reason why I hate religion, respect my wife, respect the fact that my son is smarter than yours, and I'll respect the fact that your son plays basketball extremely well (maybe I'll even buy tickets to go see him), respect all of these things and more, and I'll forgive any of your opposite opinions or questionable actions (but perhaps not without injecting my own thoughts into the mix).
I certainly think that our governing system is broken. Exactly how many of Slashdot's thousands of readers reasonably expect that they could be President? Be a U.S. Senator? Be the Speaker of the House? Dubya was born into his role just as the Kings of Medieval Europe were born into theirs. That definitely needs to change. We need soccer moms debating their thoughts on bills. We need the former mechanic deciding on defense spending. We need fucking computer literate people deciding on legislation like the DMCA. America needs all those things if it wants to quit deluding itself that our country still runs on the tenets founded upon by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and many others.
I'll get down off the soapbox now, but only if someone else volunteers to pick it up, carry it down to the next street corner, set it down, and proceed to lecture the corner of 5th and Main St., and then someone else lectures all of Broadway St., then someone else lectures Times Square, then Tian'anmen Square, then 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and then Paris, England, Baghdad, Hong Kong, and Hollywood, until a form of government about the people, by the people, and for the people impeach George W. Bush and put someone there who actually cares about the people.
I'm pissed.
I believe it is quite relevant, as copyright covers much literature that has been written in the 50s-present era which is not in print any more and not making money, but yet still is controlled by publishing conglomerates. I for one have to sit down when I think that, if copyright existed back past the turn of the century (the last one), then I would not be able to read Shakespeare, Norris, or other great authors without paying upwards of $25 for an edition. Ask yourself why A Tale of Two Cities hardcover book at Barnes and Noble is $6, while the new John Grisham book is priced ON SALE at $29.95. Its because anyone can publish A Tale of Two Cities, not because John Grisham is a whole lot better writer.
We should stop here and discuss not the jurisdictional ownership of said property (i.e., the fact that the record labels own the music, not the musicians), but the morality of the state of the business. We live in a world where "art" is swept into corners and under rugs based on how much money it will make. You're good at singing stupid pop songs? Here you go: multi-million dollar contract, we own your soul, plus anything you produce while working here. What? You think your "art" is something personal and you want to be able to control what happens to it? Fine, hope life in the indie-records section at the local music store treats you well.
The problem here is not that the general population wants good(?) music for free. The problem which should be flying around Congress is that the copyrights belong to the music industry and not the musicians. Every person who posts that "all you guys talk about freedom, but what you're really doing is stealing from the musicians... blah, blah, blah", all you're really doing is shoveling load of bullshit after load of bullshit so that the members of the RIAA can go on raping budding musicians for all the money they're worth, then dumping them at the side of the road. The only reason that music industry doesn't qualify for anti-trust inquiries is that it is fragmented into (more than) several companies, but since they all come together as the RIAA to get their dirty work done, isn't someone freakin' accountable for their actions? Just when the hell is an entire industry (which itself is just a middleman) going to get its due for screwing not only the consumers of the content but the producers of it as well?
I'm not naive, I see that as long as those filthy vultures have the highest price lobbyists and lawyers, they will get what they want, but music is too old of a human tradition to be controlled in this way. What, in 20 years if I buy a drum set and hit the snare a few times, I'll be sued because one time that beat was used in a song by an artist who at one time was employed by a record label that is part of the RIAA? A bit overboard, I know, but just where the hell is the logical conclusion to the RIAA controlling what we hear?
One last question to those that say Napster rapes musicians: If a musician, under contract from an RIAA label, wanted me (for whatever reason) to be able to have access to his/her music, say, over FTP or Napster, would he/she be sued by their own Record Label for distributing content that they created?
Give me a break. The NFL players grunt, curse, and everything else too.
Just wanted to note, also, that I heard surprisingly little swearing during all three XFL games I watched. I don't know if the XFL has some kind of house rule ("Please, please, please don't swear on field") or if these guys just happen to not want to embarass themselves by making it so that the on-field experience has to be bleeped, but in all I was rather impressed on that front.
Wait a damned minute.
Baseball has dozens of corporate tie-ins. Yet I see coverage in the newspaper, on several different TV channels, and on the net.
Football has many different companies paying rights to plaster their image all over every goddamned thing at the stadium, yet I can still go to sportsline.com and get the updates while I'm at work (fine, sportsline is a part of cbs, then I can go to a different site as well).
Etc, etc, etc. The point is that these are sports people want to watch, and the internet outlets (along with other media) set out to inform people about them. Then along comes the olympics with its:
All in all, I care neither way. Let the stupid Olympics crumble. I would be much more interested in watching a World Championship of Track and Field (which is essentially what the original Olympics were about), than see who gets the gold in Shopping, Ping-Pong, Outer Space Street Fighter II Turbo, Water Polo, or MP3 Downloading (whoa, RIAA vs. Olympic committee: I would pay to see that fight).
I feel the need to clarify, as many have mistaken my 'laughing all the way to the bank' statement as empty words slung across the many years at the more 'fortunate' kids in high school. These kids were truly jerks, yes. They were elitist, and stupid, yes. But more importantly nowadays I choose not to dwell on it. Like I said, they are nothing now, and while that in an of itself is sad, I'm not going to show pity for them because they thought sitting in the back of the class making jokes was more important than actually learning. Rereading my original post, it certainly came across more arrogantly and harshly than I intended (and only realized this after I read the thought-provoking replies).
As far as college being the best time of ones life, well, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. Of course for some its true, but I would like to take the (woo-wee) somewhat philosophical approach and say that the best time of your life is whatever particular part of life you're in. I like college right now, but I'm excited to move on and see what else is out there. If I stayed here, afriad that what comes next might not be fun or interesting I'd end up as a grad student (just kidding. poking a little fun. no flames please!)
See, laughing all the way to the bank is not necessarily an end, but a means to an end. And the point at which one stops worrying how they're going to make that next car/house/credit card payment is the point at which one can really start to enjoy what life has to offer. You like nature? Of course you can go to a park whether you're rich or poor, but going on a camping trip somewhere spectaular? Takes a bit more moola. You like working on cars? Well, now instead of that rusted out Vega in the garage you can buy somehting a little nicer to tinker with (not to offend any Vega lovers out there). More importantly, the time with my friends is something special to me, and I take advantage of it whenever I can. More money means more fun trips to, oh, a Milwaukee Brewers game (maybe even a skybox! ROCK!) or fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, or going to Vegas for the weekend.
Essentially, my view is that money in and of itself will not make me happier, but having the resources to go out with my family and friends and do things we all enjoy will. I certainly don't want to be Scrooge McDuck swimming through good coins and such. Of course you're welcome to disagree, but I believe my sentiments are not basely defined here.
...I have finally realized that nothing in high school matters. It may suck while you're there (I know it sucked when I was there) but if you survive it in a fashion somewhat more sanely than the Columbine Killers did there is a whole goddamned world waiting for you! I'm finishing up college in May and I am thoroughly satisfied with the whole college experience. I made a ton of friends who did not judge me based on one look or one conversation, many of whom I will keep in contact with throughout my life.
My point is that all of those asshole jocks and popular kids (at least the ones from my 2000+ student body school) will not amount to anything. Every one of 'em from my school are stuck back in my hellish hometown cause they flunked out of college or never even got there, and now I'm gonna laugh all the way to the bank!
Hence, gettin back to what I want to stress to anyone still there is not to sweat it. Just don't freak out and keep it in the back of your mind that these busters won't be anywhere in 4 years; you most likely will.
Most importantly, keep a positive attitude, as I know that I was very bitter in high school, whereas now I am looking forward to the rest of my post-college life.
But, in election years I suppose its more important to get the vote, while in non-election years its more important to remind people what you've done the past 4 years to get their vote again.
Unfortunately, this problem remains to be resolved and more and mroe people don't vote. Well hell, I'm voting for Nader and I don't even know shit about him. At least I know my vote didn't go towards keeping the current power-grabbing cycle perpetuate.
I know that when I graduated from high school, the counselors were saying for everybody that wanted to be "assured a job", they should definately go into IT/Com Sci programs, but now that I'm ready to graduate soon, I am thinking more and more often that the job market may be slowing down, since any jabroni with brains ran out and got their MCSE, and now may be sitting in cushy IT jobs while I sweated out college for 4 years learning things like compiler design, and how to program in MIPS RISC assembly.
Meanwhile, the reason that many people out of college may not be as intelligent as those who have been in the profession a while is that (as I know from personal experience) many have to work menial jobs while in college that may have no computer exposure in order to simply pay rent. In my college town, the mainly accessable jobs for students are service oriented, not technology oriented. I am very worried that I may not have the job skills to offer an employer that another student who did not have to work through school has from sitting in his dorm room and playing around with his computer for 4 years.
Essentially, this is a problem of self-improvement, for the market will evetually evolve to a point where only the best and brightest will be tolerated in positions of power.