Nope. Of course I didn't list only race, and I don't see how public funding has the ability to effect whether or not somebody is intimidated, but since you seem to continue to think that the point I'm arguing is that this should be illegal instead of reading and understanding what I'm actually saying, you continue to push an unrelated point.
When I bring up legal issues, it isn't about whether this act was legal or illegal. It is that I think it is perfectly fine to share the public information of people that have chosen a public activity, and the law and Supreme Court agree with me.
I don't know why you think this when the law clearly states that this isn't always the case. Note that once again I'm not saying that I think this is a good or bad law, merely that the law doesn't agree with you in all cases.
If you want to claim it is or should be illegal to organize information, or that it is immoral to orgaize information, that is your right. I don't share that view.
Why do you continue to insist that I think this dispite repeatedly telling you that I'm not taking this position? I have said nothing about wether somthing like this should be legal or not what I'm saying is that simply the publication of such a list has an effect that the original poster I responded to claimed it did not. This isn't about reasonable expectations of privacy, what's right or wrong, who's worthy of protection and who isn't or any of that. It's about the plain fact that having your name, the place you're staying and when you'll be there posted in a list and distributed to a group of activists that disagree with you is intimidating.
So, you object to self-selected members of a public organization taking a public stand in a public and televised location having their identities made public.... I read. I don't get it.
Those people are voters, not candidates or elected officials. They are protected by law from being intimidated such that anybody with sufficent support can be elected no matter how "evil" the opposition might think they are. In fact they are allowed to remain anonymous when they vote, as is every citizen of the US when they cast a ballot. You're required to provide your name and address when you register, but that isn't connected in any way to what you choose on the ballot. Essentially, this means that you have to campaign on the issues in an election and you're not allowed to play dirty.
Whose information can be made public? You claim no ones
You further prove your lack of reading comprehension. Did you miss when I said "I'm not claiming one way is more correct than the other, but you have to pick." I self referenced my comment because this discussion is about understanding why people may be intimidated by having such a list posted, and not about the legality or morality of the practice. You seem hell bent on turning this into a discussion about something else, or incapable of understanding written English.
What's a poor Unix-using guy to do, when he needs to grep text, compressed tarballs, OO.o documents, Debian archives, mime-encoded files, Evil Microsoft documents, PDF files, compressed AbiWord files, etc.
Um, why not pipe the output of your favorite program that interacts with the file type you're interested in to grep? Isn't that the "poor unix guy" way?
As long as these acess points are shipped with encryption turned *OFF* by default this is like pissing in the wind. It could be 1 billion bit one time pads and woulnd't make any difference. In my neighboorhood there are 10 unencrypted networks....all on the default channels.
You make it sound like this is the end of the world. What's the point of turning on encryption if you're not trying to hide anything? So what if somebody can see what porn site you're surfing... And if you're sending confidental data you should be doing it over an encrypted protocol anyway. There's no reason to turn this stuff on by default because most people just plain don't need it. If you need to turn it on because you have neighbors that live close by who steal your bandwith otherwise, or you need encryption to feel like you're enough of a geek, then it's there for you. As for me, my access point is open dispite WEP being enabled by default. Maybe somebody driving by some day will find it useful for a few minutes, and it sure is nice not having to tell people how visit what the key is to connect.
You don't get it. At all. I'm not going to argue that point with you because that wasn't the point.
Nobody is claiming anybody was attacked in this instance.
I'm done arguing with you. You're either too stupid to get it, or you're so blinded by political bias to understand the issues and I'm basically feeding a troll. If you'd like to discuss something that resembles my original point I'd be happy to, but since that's not where this has gone I'm done. Bye.
The difference between your example and reality is that everybody who uses internet search engines to find information is a "reader" of indymedia. In otherwords, essentially everybody how would be looking to use this information is a reader of indymeda and your qualification didn't matter. Where as the wings qualification is not similarly moot.
Of course I said that in a roundabout way in the first part of my comment, which you neglected to quote. Convienient.
Even though they used friendly wording, copyright terms were retroactively lengthened in 1992 as well. They just called it "automatic renewal" instead of "doubling the term".
Patents expire if Microsoft and GlaxoSmithKline don't sweet-talk Congress into a delusion that repeated term extensions are good for the American economy.
Unlike copyrights, non-medical patent terms have only been changed three times in the history of the US Patent office, and they remain largely the same as they were initially. If drug companies manage a term extension it likely won't apply to other inventions. Considering we probably have another 7 to 10 years before these next generation DVDs are in common use, we'll be most of the way to expiration on the patents before most of us ever see a Blu-Ray disc.
There have never been attacks on Republicans qua Republicans by the readers of Indymedia
I don't know why you think you have to limit your scope solely to the readers of indymedia, but even so you don't know who those readers are. Either way, if you think the first part of that sentence is true you either slept through history class or slept through the 80s.
"We the government" or "We the Republicans" does not carry the same weight as "We the people," nor should it.
At the same time the people creating and posting this list are less representitive of "the people" as a whole than any of the other groups you list. They're not the people, they're some people.
The Republicans really are dangerous and anti-democratic; the Democrats aren't.
They're also equally protected under the law. Even if you're right, being dangerous doesn't strip you of your rights.
classified by groups that are stereotypically oppressed (or think they are anyway...)
Just as a preemptive clarification: That comment doesn't mean that any of the people in any of those hypothetical lists are/aren't oppressed, but that not everybody who thinks they're oppressed actually is, and you don't have to actually be oppressed to be intimidated.
Why is simply posting it illegal? From the article...
So, I guess the argumet is supposed to be that simply posting the list isn't an act of intimidation. If you want to know why this isn't the case, as a mental exercise think about lists of names and addresses of people classified by groups that are stereotypically oppressed (or think they are anyway...). Here's a few to try:
Jews Communists Homosexuals Blacks Members of the ACLU Registered Slashdot users etc...
You'd be hard pressed to find such a list that didn't intimidate some people by merely including them on the list. You can't have a double standard though. Either you let the neo-nazi's keep a list of addresses of jews in their local town on their website while disclaiming responsibility for how their members use the information, or you ban the entire practice. I'm not claiming one way is more correct than the other, but you have to pick.
In short, judge the devices on their merits and try to be at least moderately open-minded here.
You don't have to be very open minded to realize they're only going to sell 500 of these things.
Oh sure, maybe they'll sell more of them LIGHT YEARS in the future when the component costs come down into the range that will make the device profitable, but let's face it... They are only making 500 of these things right now for a reason. Apple updates the iPod every 6 months or so. Do you really think this thing will still be so "advanced" when they manage to make it widely available, or will it just be another second rate iPod with a crappy interface?
There's no real reason the GBA has to be the 'last bastion' of 2D games. They'll still be around on the DS
I've heard first hand from developers for the PSP and the DS that they are being "encouraged" to make games that take advantage of the platform's 3d capabilities. When I say "encouraged," I mean it in the same way that people were "encouraged" not to make 2d games for the N64.
The theme I was going for with my comment is just that the GBA is derrivative
Whenever somebody complains that something is derivative (one 'r' BTW) I can't help but lose interest in their argument. That's the most redundant thing anybody can say about practically anything. It's like the one brush you can paint anything with to sound like you're making an intelligent critique, because everything fits into that category.
so why are so many of the game's so dumbed-down and simple, comparitively?
Two reasons, first because there's only 4 fricking buttons, which is the only real complaint about the system that has any substance. Games have gotten around this and become reasonably complex using clever, though a bit arcane, interface concepts, but the system really would benefit from 2 to 4 additional buttons. Second, because you have some skewed memory of the plot complexity of SNES games. None of those were pulitzer prize winners either. Not that a platform game really needs a plot to be fun..
the game lineup on the GBA was the worst thing about it
The GBA is the last bastion of 2D RPGs and platform games. Some of the titles availble for GBA will end up being the last and greatest games available in those genres. Sure, there are hundreds of throwaway titles based on tired licenses and professional "wrestling", but there are dozens of gems amongst them. Considering the number of platforms out there that never made it to having 30-40 exclusive titles total, it's hard to complain about a platform that has 30-40 really excelent games mixed in among the 500-600 really terrible ones.
The only point I think you've made is that you can't pick out the good games amongst the bad.
current generation DVD (which admittedly looks DAMN good when pumped out of a Radeon 9800)
Hate to break it to you, but it probably looks "DAMN good" on a Rage128 that you could find in a dumpster out behind OfficeMax too. Hell, you could get standalone DVD players with VGA out for less than a Radeon 9800, but hey, if you think it looks better on a $200 card you can go right ahead and spend your money...
While I love my Aeron, it's not the secret to eliminating back pain. If your back muscles are weak, sitting up for 12+ hours will hurt in any chair that doesn't fasten around the torso and hold your spine straight for you.
Do some excercises. If you have to spend most of your day sitting, you can reduce the time you spend on it by slowly adding weight. The things you should be doing are sit-ups (with a weight held cross armed on your chest if you only want to do 25 reps instead of 100), deadlifts (get a weight for each hand, or a bar, bend your knees only slightly and then bend at your lower back lifting with your lower back muscles. Keep your upper back straight or you'll hurt yourself), and some upper back work depending on equipment availablity. If you have access to some gym equipment, do some pulldowns with a bar that lets your hands face inward. If you don't, get some dumbells, lie on your chest, and with your arms out lift them 3 or four inches off the floor and hold them up for a few seconds. When you're not really weak anymore you can try some pullups. If you're to the point where you have upper back pain from sitting, and there's nothing physically injured about your back though, it'll probably be a while before you can do even one pull-up.
Spend 10-15 minutes a day staying in shape a bit and you won't have any back pain. (Except for the first few days after you start... You'll hurt like you've never hurt before those first few days...)
Should we preserve every building ever built? Every picture ever painted? Who decideds what things are "signifigant" enough to preserve. Who's to say what side of the line these obsolete and, if you ask me, ugly old televisions fall on? What makes something more worthy of preservation than something else?
I don't want to see a system where the rich folks get lower premiums due to driving in suburbs, while urban drivers get nailed.
Too late. Auto insurance rates are already adjusted based on the the crime levels of the area the vehicle owner lives in and works in.
The real problem with these monitoring devices is that insurance companies won't reward "Safe" behavior. Instead they'll reward conformant behavior. The things that change your insurance rates now sometimes don't even have a correlation with the risk level of the individual that's being insured. Causation is non existant. These monitoring devices will just throw a whole bunch of new variables into an already chaotic equation. When they can convince me they can accurately predict the risk level of insuring a particular driver in a particular vehicle based on certain characteristics and behaviors, then maybe they'll convince me to allow them to monitor those behaviors.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a difference. Do you?
Nope. Of course I didn't list only race, and I don't see how public funding has the ability to effect whether or not somebody is intimidated, but since you seem to continue to think that the point I'm arguing is that this should be illegal instead of reading and understanding what I'm actually saying, you continue to push an unrelated point.
When I bring up legal issues, it isn't about whether this act was legal or illegal. It is that I think it is perfectly fine to share the public information of people that have chosen a public activity, and the law and Supreme Court agree with me.
I don't know why you think this when the law clearly states that this isn't always the case. Note that once again I'm not saying that I think this is a good or bad law, merely that the law doesn't agree with you in all cases.
If you want to claim it is or should be illegal to organize information, or that it is immoral to orgaize information, that is your right. I don't share that view.
Why do you continue to insist that I think this dispite repeatedly telling you that I'm not taking this position? I have said nothing about wether somthing like this should be legal or not what I'm saying is that simply the publication of such a list has an effect that the original poster I responded to claimed it did not. This isn't about reasonable expectations of privacy, what's right or wrong, who's worthy of protection and who isn't or any of that. It's about the plain fact that having your name, the place you're staying and when you'll be there posted in a list and distributed to a group of activists that disagree with you is intimidating.
So, you object to self-selected members of a public organization taking a public stand in a public and televised location having their identities made public. ... I read. I don't get it.
Those people are voters, not candidates or elected officials. They are protected by law from being intimidated such that anybody with sufficent support can be elected no matter how "evil" the opposition might think they are. In fact they are allowed to remain anonymous when they vote, as is every citizen of the US when they cast a ballot. You're required to provide your name and address when you register, but that isn't connected in any way to what you choose on the ballot. Essentially, this means that you have to campaign on the issues in an election and you're not allowed to play dirty.
Whose information can be made public? You claim no ones
You further prove your lack of reading comprehension. Did you miss when I said "I'm not claiming one way is more correct than the other, but you have to pick." I self referenced my comment because this discussion is about understanding why people may be intimidated by having such a list posted, and not about the legality or morality of the practice. You seem hell bent on turning this into a discussion about something else, or incapable of understanding written English.
What's a poor Unix-using guy to do, when he needs to grep text, compressed tarballs, OO.o documents, Debian archives, mime-encoded files, Evil Microsoft documents, PDF files, compressed AbiWord files, etc.
Um, why not pipe the output of your favorite program that interacts with the file type you're interested in to grep? Isn't that the "poor unix guy" way?
catdoc Blah.doc | grep foo
zcat compressed.txt.gz | grep foo
apt-cache show package | grep foo
pdftotext Blah.pdf | grep foo
etc...
As long as these acess points are shipped with encryption turned *OFF* by default this is like pissing in the wind. It could be 1 billion bit one time pads and woulnd't make any difference. In my neighboorhood there are 10 unencrypted networks....all on the default channels.
You make it sound like this is the end of the world. What's the point of turning on encryption if you're not trying to hide anything? So what if somebody can see what porn site you're surfing... And if you're sending confidental data you should be doing it over an encrypted protocol anyway. There's no reason to turn this stuff on by default because most people just plain don't need it. If you need to turn it on because you have neighbors that live close by who steal your bandwith otherwise, or you need encryption to feel like you're enough of a geek, then it's there for you. As for me, my access point is open dispite WEP being enabled by default. Maybe somebody driving by some day will find it useful for a few minutes, and it sure is nice not having to tell people how visit what the key is to connect.
Read
You don't get it. At all. I'm not going to argue that point with you because that wasn't the point.
Nobody is claiming anybody was attacked in this instance.
I'm done arguing with you. You're either too stupid to get it, or you're so blinded by political bias to understand the issues and I'm basically feeding a troll. If you'd like to discuss something that resembles my original point I'd be happy to, but since that's not where this has gone I'm done. Bye.
The difference between your example and reality is that everybody who uses internet search engines to find information is a "reader" of indymedia. In otherwords, essentially everybody how would be looking to use this information is a reader of indymeda and your qualification didn't matter. Where as the wings qualification is not similarly moot.
Of course I said that in a roundabout way in the first part of my comment, which you neglected to quote. Convienient.
Oh, and it was also twice in the mid-1800s:
The Revision of Copyright act of 1830, and the adoption of the Berne Convention in 1886. That makes 6 times.
Even though they used friendly wording, copyright terms were retroactively lengthened in 1992 as well. They just called it "automatic renewal" instead of "doubling the term".
That makes 3 times in just the last 50 years.
Patents expire if Microsoft and GlaxoSmithKline don't sweet-talk Congress into a delusion that repeated term extensions are good for the American economy.
Unlike copyrights, non-medical patent terms have only been changed three times in the history of the US Patent office, and they remain largely the same as they were initially. If drug companies manage a term extension it likely won't apply to other inventions. Considering we probably have another 7 to 10 years before these next generation DVDs are in common use, we'll be most of the way to expiration on the patents before most of us ever see a Blu-Ray disc.
Doesn't matter if they do or not. The point is that FOSS will never be legally allowed to play these *standard* media discs, ever.
Patents expire.
Oh, I forgot...
There have never been attacks on Republicans qua Republicans by the readers of Indymedia
I don't know why you think you have to limit your scope solely to the readers of indymedia, but even so you don't know who those readers are. Either way, if you think the first part of that sentence is true you either slept through history class or slept through the 80s.
Ergo, let's ban all lists because they intimidate some people all of the time, right?
I didn't say that. I said you can't have a double standard.
Like those nasty phone-books or the list maintained by your college of people that graduated in your year.
Schools obtain consent before adding people to such a list. Those lists also have limited distribution.
Finally, who on earth moderated this as "insightful"?
People who weren't allowing their objective view of the issue to be clouded by their political preferences.
And you have the right to not have someone publish public data about you?
No. You have the right not to be harrassed. This isn't about the act of publishing public information, it's about context.
"We the government" or "We the Republicans" does not carry the same weight as "We the people," nor should it.
At the same time the people creating and posting this list are less representitive of "the people" as a whole than any of the other groups you list. They're not the people, they're some people.
The Republicans really are dangerous and anti-democratic; the Democrats aren't.
They're also equally protected under the law. Even if you're right, being dangerous doesn't strip you of your rights.
classified by groups that are stereotypically oppressed (or think they are anyway...)
Just as a preemptive clarification: That comment doesn't mean that any of the people in any of those hypothetical lists are/aren't oppressed, but that not everybody who thinks they're oppressed actually is, and you don't have to actually be oppressed to be intimidated.
Why is simply posting it illegal? From the article ...
So, I guess the argumet is supposed to be that simply posting the list isn't an act of intimidation. If you want to know why this isn't the case, as a mental exercise think about lists of names and addresses of people classified by groups that are stereotypically oppressed (or think they are anyway...). Here's a few to try:
Jews
Communists
Homosexuals
Blacks
Members of the ACLU
Registered Slashdot users
etc...
You'd be hard pressed to find such a list that didn't intimidate some people by merely including them on the list. You can't have a double standard though. Either you let the neo-nazi's keep a list of addresses of jews in their local town on their website while disclaiming responsibility for how their members use the information, or you ban the entire practice. I'm not claiming one way is more correct than the other, but you have to pick.
Dry erase...
Wipes right off the LEDs with no solvent needed.
In short, judge the devices on their merits and try to be at least moderately open-minded here.
You don't have to be very open minded to realize they're only going to sell 500 of these things.
Oh sure, maybe they'll sell more of them LIGHT YEARS in the future when the component costs come down into the range that will make the device profitable, but let's face it... They are only making 500 of these things right now for a reason. Apple updates the iPod every 6 months or so. Do you really think this thing will still be so "advanced" when they manage to make it widely available, or will it just be another second rate iPod with a crappy interface?
There's no real reason the GBA has to be the 'last bastion' of 2D games. They'll still be around on the DS
I've heard first hand from developers for the PSP and the DS that they are being "encouraged" to make games that take advantage of the platform's 3d capabilities. When I say "encouraged," I mean it in the same way that people were "encouraged" not to make 2d games for the N64.
The theme I was going for with my comment is just that the GBA is derrivative
Whenever somebody complains that something is derivative (one 'r' BTW) I can't help but lose interest in their argument. That's the most redundant thing anybody can say about practically anything. It's like the one brush you can paint anything with to sound like you're making an intelligent critique, because everything fits into that category.
so why are so many of the game's so dumbed-down and simple, comparitively?
Two reasons, first because there's only 4 fricking buttons, which is the only real complaint about the system that has any substance. Games have gotten around this and become reasonably complex using clever, though a bit arcane, interface concepts, but the system really would benefit from 2 to 4 additional buttons. Second, because you have some skewed memory of the plot complexity of SNES games. None of those were pulitzer prize winners either. Not that a platform game really needs a plot to be fun..
the game lineup on the GBA was the worst thing about it
The GBA is the last bastion of 2D RPGs and platform games. Some of the titles availble for GBA will end up being the last and greatest games available in those genres. Sure, there are hundreds of throwaway titles based on tired licenses and professional "wrestling", but there are dozens of gems amongst them. Considering the number of platforms out there that never made it to having 30-40 exclusive titles total, it's hard to complain about a platform that has 30-40 really excelent games mixed in among the 500-600 really terrible ones.
The only point I think you've made is that you can't pick out the good games amongst the bad.
current generation DVD (which admittedly looks DAMN good when pumped out of a Radeon 9800)
Hate to break it to you, but it probably looks "DAMN good" on a Rage128 that you could find in a dumpster out behind OfficeMax too. Hell, you could get standalone DVD players with VGA out for less than a Radeon 9800, but hey, if you think it looks better on a $200 card you can go right ahead and spend your money...
While I love my Aeron, it's not the secret to eliminating back pain. If your back muscles are weak, sitting up for 12+ hours will hurt in any chair that doesn't fasten around the torso and hold your spine straight for you.
Do some excercises. If you have to spend most of your day sitting, you can reduce the time you spend on it by slowly adding weight. The things you should be doing are sit-ups (with a weight held cross armed on your chest if you only want to do 25 reps instead of 100), deadlifts (get a weight for each hand, or a bar, bend your knees only slightly and then bend at your lower back lifting with your lower back muscles. Keep your upper back straight or you'll hurt yourself), and some upper back work depending on equipment availablity. If you have access to some gym equipment, do some pulldowns with a bar that lets your hands face inward. If you don't, get some dumbells, lie on your chest, and with your arms out lift them 3 or four inches off the floor and hold them up for a few seconds. When you're not really weak anymore you can try some pullups. If you're to the point where you have upper back pain from sitting, and there's nothing physically injured about your back though, it'll probably be a while before you can do even one pull-up.
Spend 10-15 minutes a day staying in shape a bit and you won't have any back pain. (Except for the first few days after you start... You'll hurt like you've never hurt before those first few days...)
Where do you draw the line?
Should we preserve every building ever built? Every picture ever painted? Who decideds what things are "signifigant" enough to preserve. Who's to say what side of the line these obsolete and, if you ask me, ugly old televisions fall on? What makes something more worthy of preservation than something else?
I don't want to see a system where the rich folks get lower premiums due to driving in suburbs, while urban drivers get nailed.
Too late. Auto insurance rates are already adjusted based on the the crime levels of the area the vehicle owner lives in and works in.
The real problem with these monitoring devices is that insurance companies won't reward "Safe" behavior. Instead they'll reward conformant behavior. The things that change your insurance rates now sometimes don't even have a correlation with the risk level of the individual that's being insured. Causation is non existant. These monitoring devices will just throw a whole bunch of new variables into an already chaotic equation. When they can convince me they can accurately predict the risk level of insuring a particular driver in a particular vehicle based on certain characteristics and behaviors, then maybe they'll convince me to allow them to monitor those behaviors.