I mean, I know the Xeons have more cache, but with Celerons approaching 600 MHz, why doesn't Intel concentrate on the Celeron for consumers and leave the overpriced PIII to the highend / server market? What kind of advantage is Joe User going to see with a 600 MHz PIII that he won't with a 500 MHz Celeron?
What makes the PIII "better" than the celeron, anyway? All those useful extra instructions?
I would guess so, that's what askreggie seems to do. Hmm, askreggie is owned by andover.net also... they are buying everything and turning into MS!!!! Ahhhhhhhh!!!!
With that little Devil icon, it shows you that BSD was made by the devil himself. Since they want religion in the schools, they consider this a good thing, believe it or not. Of course, nobody can BUY this tool of satan, but they can mention it in schools.
"An eMachines spokesperson said in the paper that it was hoping to trade off Apple's brand name. If I was their lawyer, I would have died when I read that," says Weinstein, who practices trademark litigation. She says it gives Apple a chance to charge eMachines with willful infringement. Apple did not return calls seeking comment. "
Here is the point: they were trying to make money off Apple's success.
I have never seen a Fiat spider and so I can't comment on it. Maybe the fact that I've never seen one says something about why Mazda didn't get sued: the Fiat design was a flop while the Miata was a huge success.
Sure, car companies make cars that are ripoffs of each other all the time (see any SUV), but not when the styling of the car is so distinctive, as is the case for the Vette or Firebird. Otherwise, why wouldn't cheap car manufacturers just make a replica of the Vette's body and put it on a v6 and sell it for $15k?
How about this. Ford "designs" a car that looks almost exactly like the Corvette. It has a different interior and the steering wheel's on the right side and it has a bigger engine. Oh, and a cup holder. But the body style is distinctly Corvette. Don't you think Chevy would complain? Don't you think they would have every right to?
I don't get why people seem to have this inbred hatred of Apple. First their open source efforts are just "not good enough" and now they fight to try and protect a design that has become their signature and they are some kind of pirates out to stop everybody from making computers to compete with iMac.
Listen, Apple is not doing anything wrong here. The eMachines computer was a clear design ripoff. Even the keyboard is practically identical. Like Jobs said, there were millions of designs they could have come up with, but instead they decided to copy a design Apple spent lots of money developing because it's a hot selling item. I don't see why people make Apple the bad guy here and simply exonerate eMachines from any wrongdoing. It's that "Apple Sucks" mentality that everybody seems to propagate, and these days it's really baseless, and very aggravating.
So you're saying most people DON'T use RedHat? People say things like "if big companies don't wake up to open source, they'll die," or something along those lines, but then Apple goes and does it and everybody thinks it's evil. Everything every company does is a strategic move. Apple realized that its OS wasn't exactly the most stable one around, so they're taking some serious hints from, well, the most stable OS around. Why everybody thinks this is some kind of incestual sin is beyond me. Apple Open Sourced it to try and get people to hack on it. Obviously it's going to be hard for a huge corporation to get the kind of grassroots support that Linux has gotten, especially one as despised by geeks as Apple (well, Mac), but they're trying. I think their heart's in the right place. Of course they have the profit motive, sure, but they want to stay alive just like RH and any other company, and if they see the wave of the future is Open Source and *nix based Operating Systems, why shouldn't they embrace it? I mean, it's not like they're trying to incorporate win2k into MacOS [shudder]. This is a proven, basically universally loved platform that they're trying to adopt. They are not moving to Open Source because it's "hip" (well, maybe a little), they're doing it because they see that that's where the future of the industry is headed.
Yeah yeah yeah, they didn't release the entire source code, and it's not under the GPL. Well could you imagine what would happen if MacOS was completely GPLed? Sure, the OS would probably improve by some orders of magnitude, but Apple would probably go out of business. It's easier to start a company out with a free product and figure out a way to sell it than it is to base a company on a pay product and then give it away. That's why Red Hat may actually make money, whereas Apple surely wouldn't if they gave away the entire source to their next-gen OS.
This is only mildly related to the topic, but did anybody hear Howard Stern on Monday? Some moron from Memphis called in, she said she worked at a magazine, and she asks Howard, "Did you see the blair witch project? Was that real?" and Howard mutes her and makes fun of her and stuff, and then he goes, "Yes, it was all real. The director of the FBI called me and the president of Artisan, the company that distributed the movie, in to a meeting to talk about this." He went on and on, and the moron was like, "Oh wow. Are you serious?" and Howard goes "Honey, I am totally serious." She goes, "You know, I thought it was real, but I wasn't sure, because some people are saying it isn't." Howard goes, "have you ever seen any of those actors before? If this was just a movie, would they hire somebody with a big ass to play the girl?" So he mutes her again and he goes, to the mic, "Watch this, I'm going to sell her the Brooklyn Bridge." And you know what? He actually sold her the Brooklyn Bridge. He told her for an investment of $300 a month, she could make up to $1500 per month from her cut of the tolls. "Are you serious?" Anyway, he did it. It was hilarious. Then he told her they're building a bridge from NY to VA, but he told her she couldn't get in on that deal, because he was buying the entire bridge.
Like I said, only remotely related to the topic, but it was hilarious. Hopefully E will show this one. Also on the show were a guy who had his Mom and wife strip to promote a movie, and a midget porno star.
While I love the new pbs, the price of the system you listed is a bit high. For my money ($2249 educational) I got a 333 mhz, 4gb, 64 mb. I added an extra 128 mb for $99. DVD's just not worth the extra money, afaic, and if I change my mind I can just get the vst drive later.
Well I never tried running it dry, but my battery meter has never read more than 3:30, even after charging for days&days. one of the new powerbooks, mind you.
The term "Network Computer," or NC, seems to pop into my mind now... a computer that would have no hard drive and boot its OS from rom (or the network, even) and get all apps and stuff from the network. I didn't know they wanted everybody to pay for every byte though.
Wasn't Sun the company that came up with the rent-an-app model a few years ago, the one that Ballmer said MS was looking in to earlier this week? If so, just another case of MS trying to seem like innovators when they've really just stolen somebody else's idea.
See also: Windows (regardless of whether you think they stole it from Apple or Xerox).
It didn't seem like the article was about dumbing keyboards down for newbies at all, just about discussing keys that should be extinct -- serve no purpose. On my Mac, basically the entire series of F-keys aren't used. I rarely use the help, home, end, numlock keys, nor the entire keypad. The article does make one incorrect statement:
Even Apple Macintoshes adopted similar keyboards, but with Command instead of Control keys and Option instead of Alt.
Actually, Macs have Command instead of Alt (on the old keyboards) and still have a control. The Option key is there also.
Nothing is more useless, imho, than the Windows95 keys, which seem to serve the unique purpose of making the spacebar 3 inches long.
The best keyboard layout would be the PowerBook's if not for a few problems. First, it has a useless "Enter" key to the right of the spacebar, where there is traditionally a Cmd key. Fortunately this can be remapped. Second, the arrow keys are too small. Third, you should be able to use the f-keys to do anything. I mean, doesn't the F stand for function? I should be able to launch Netscape by pushing f5 if I want. The iBook lets you do that. Diehard keypad users who need to enter tons of numbers can set the numlock and the keypad gets mapped to the 789-uio-jkl-m,. keys. It fits the most useful stuff in the smallest space while maintaining a "full size" keyboard and drops the useless "print screen," "scroll lock, " and "pause" keys that I have never pressed. There, I pressed them. Wow.
Also, the Powerbook and iMac have the light for the Caps Lock button INSIDE the caps lock button. So if you want to see if it's on, you don't look on the other side of the keyboard.
The most useful key on the entire keyboard, of course, is the power button. Why have no other manufacturers picked up on this?
A poster above brought up a good point. I mean, can he not use an ATM or a microwave? What definition of "Computer" are they using? Isn't almost everything a computer now? I mean, what if he gets a job as a Janitor and he has to use a computerized time clock system? He can't take that job? Are they specifying this somewhere, or just leaving it up in the air?
What about Playstation and the like? Do those count as computers? How about Playstation 2, which will be more powerful than a normal computer? Hmmm? Anybody got any info on this?
Re:More perverted than American Pie? Puh-leaze :)
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Well the Starr Report was more graphic than even the pie-humping scene. How many times did they do it, did he ejaculate, etc, blah blah blah. I guess maybe perverted was the wrong word. The pie humping scene was incredibly FUNNY. The only thing remotely humorous about the whole Lewinsky BS was that we footed the bill for that extensive investigation. And that's only funny in a sad way.
But the point was that the government is exceedingly hypocritical. Did they make any attempt to stop use of the phrase "oral sex" on a daily basis on the nightly news? No. But don't let them se a pair of (admittedly awesome) breasts!! God forbid they see something at age 14 that 25 percent of them have already done!!! Heaven forbid!
Something rather unrelated to this that always offended me was this notion that kids can't know anything about sex until they reach some magical age. I mean, this is not the end of the world, they are not killing each other, this is sex. It is something that 99% of humans do. It is what we were designed for. But we can't tell anybody under age XX about that. In the US it still seems to be 17. How many sex jokes had you heard by age 17? Well, to me American Pie was the ultimate sex joke, albeit quite a bit more graphic. I went with my girlfriend and her 14 year old nephew, and he laughed his ass off the entire time. But you would not believe the hassle we had to go through to get him into the movie. The cashier told my girlfriend that "This is not a movie for kids," and "it is rated R for a reason," etc, and even got her manager. What the hell is up with this crap?
Mind you, I'm not advocating kiddie porn or giving bestiality magazines to 5 year olds or anything like that, but why do we impose an artificial age limit on when kids can "know" about sex? I mean, I got the condom lecture in health class in 7th grade, and in 6th grade there was a boy's sleepover at the school where they showed us weird things like a diagram of a penis and a vagina. THAT was weird. But at least it was an attempt. It seems that any information regarding sex that we show to kids is put through the sterilizer before we show it to them. I mean, everything I ever learned about sex ended up being rather useless when "the time" came. The glaring exception to that statement was the importance of condoms. The information about diseases and stuff was kind of helpful, but did you ever learn about blueballs in health class? It's a real condition, which I didn't learn until a couple of weeks ago on a sex-ed website for college students. Don't you think knowing the reason your nuts ache so terribly when you get really hard would have been far more useful then seeing pictures of a penis infected with syphillis?
I realize a lot of what schools do is because of what parents tell them to do, and that goes back to the hypocrisy thing. The parents of these children were just as wild as their offspring, yet they want to curb any knowledge that might be useful to them. Which goes back to the what started this whole thing, restricting access to information.
I guess I managed to go off on an incredibly long tangent when all you said was that American Pie was more perverse than the Starr Report. You're probably right, but the thing is that the Starr Report was all TRUE (or at least it was supposed to be). So in a sense that makes it sicker. But the point was more that the government that is so obsessed with "protecting the children" showed the ultimate hypocrisy by making the Starr Report and its associated disgusting things (hearing it every day on the news, etc) so freely available to everyone when nobody really cared, and then turning around and making a movie like American Pie unviewable by anyone under 17.
I wonder, if somebody released the script to American Pie and made that freely available on the Internet, what would happen? Would it be banned by the government? That same government that brought us the Starr Report?
Sigh.
disclaimer: I probably said some things in here without thinking them completely through, so if you think I'm saying all 5 year olds should be handed a copy of hustler, I'm not. But if you're thinking I'm saying all 13 year olds should be handed a copy of playboy, well, you're probably right.
Do we still live in the United States?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 3
I read this story earlier today and was basically unable to control my anger. What kind of law is that, you can't LINK to a page that promotes drugs? What are they going to do, tell the search engines not to index pages that include the phrases "smoke up" and "weed is good"? What kind of fucked up shit is this?
Does not the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States state, quote,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It seems to me that Congress and/or the Senate is working in direct opposition to the cardinal principle on which this entire nation was founded. What possible purpose can this law serve? Do they think that preventing links to pages about marijuana will somehow stop drug problems? Haven't there been drug problems since long before the internet was even conceived? What is the point of this useless legislation?
I would like to take this opportunity to say that, square as it may sound, I have never used any drugs of any kind, except alcohol (the drug of choice today -- and forever, I'll wager). But I think that people have the freedom to do whatever they want to their own bodies, and any attempt by the government to limit what a person can do to him/herself is flat out wrong (as long as they are only hurting themselves, of course).
What makes this even more idiotic than the principle behind it is the fact that they are doing this with marijuana. Not crack, or heroin, but pot. Reefer. The drug that you KNOW everybody in the Senate, House, and White House has used at one time or another. Surely the most harmless drug available today, I'll bet even less harmful than alcohol, which can clearly be tied to problems like cirrhosis of the liver and drunk driving accidents. When was the last time you heard of someone dying from an overdose of weed? Come on.
I am sick and tired of our elected officials working to do things completely contradictory to the reasons we elected them. Who has ever voted for someone that said, "Vote for me, I'll restrict your access to information, but it'll be for your own good!"? But how many of us would love a candidate that said "Vote for me, I'll make all information available to you and let you make your own life decisions!" I sure would. But given politicians' reputations for keeping their words, the first one would probably be the better choice because at least he was telling the truth.
There are more important problems facing America today than trying to limit access to the incredible resources on the Internet. This is related to the thing Jon Katz wrote about kids not being able to see American Pie. Do you think any 14/15/16 year old is not mature enough to handle this stuff? Do you think they don't already have stacks of Playboys hidden away somewhere? Do you think the people who passed these asinine laws didn't have stacks of Playboys when they were 14?
I just don't see how the government can do the complete opposite of what everybody wants and then have the nerve to tell us it's for our own good. Maybe we can show them what we think of these stupid ideas when the next polls come around.
Oh, and this is the same government that sponsored the Starr Report, which was more perverted than American Pie, and probably more "morally damaging" than a movie or drugs could ever be, because it deals with infidelity, blowjobs, etc, and it's all TRUE.
Why don't we start a new campaign for the next election? We can call it "Get rid of the fucking hypocrites." You'll have my vote.
So are Roger Daltrey and Keith Moon going to be in this? I hope Townshend doesn't dick over the remaining members of the band like Zeppelin did with JPJ.
Actually I heard that they (the Who) all hated each other now and only got back together for monetary reasons. I wonder if they are going to use the already recorded versions of the songs, or record new ones.
I searched for the MP3 of "Won't Get Fooled Again" for weeks and finally broke down and bought "Who's Next." The Liner notes are awesome (written by Townshend himself). He talks about how he fucked up the whole Lifehouse thing and the songs that he'd written became Who's Next. (He also talks about what a wonderful genius he is.)
I never was a fan of the who (give me Zeppelin any day), but Won't Get Fooled Again is truly an awesome song, and Behind Blue Eyes is great also.
I, too, would like to see what the "meaning" behind the songs was. "Teenage Wasteland..." "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." He said it was supposed to be about a Utopia or something.
(on a completely unrelated note, I would also like to know what the meanings are of those movies at the end of each level of Tekken 3. They're so weird, they confuse me. Jin sprouting wings and all...)
Slashdot Mirror
Remember?
sexy fool!
I mean, I know the Xeons have more cache, but with Celerons approaching 600 MHz, why doesn't Intel concentrate on the Celeron for consumers and leave the overpriced PIII to the highend / server market? What kind of advantage is Joe User going to see with a 600 MHz PIII that he won't with a 500 MHz Celeron?
What makes the PIII "better" than the celeron, anyway? All those useful extra instructions?
I have so many questions today!
I would guess so, that's what askreggie seems to do. Hmm, askreggie is owned by andover.net also... they are buying everything and turning into MS!!!! Ahhhhhhhh!!!!
(joke)
With that little Devil icon, it shows you that BSD was made by the devil himself. Since they want religion in the schools, they consider this a good thing, believe it or not. Of course, nobody can BUY this tool of satan, but they can mention it in schools.
...runs win98 on a Mac and any Applications that run on win98. I think it's about $150 (which includes the win98 price)
From the Yahoo article:
"An eMachines spokesperson said in the paper that it was hoping to trade off Apple's brand name. If I was their lawyer, I would have died when I read that," says Weinstein, who practices trademark litigation. She says it gives Apple a chance to charge eMachines with willful infringement. Apple did not return calls seeking comment. "
Here is the point: they were trying to make money off Apple's success.
I have never seen a Fiat spider and so I can't comment on it. Maybe the fact that I've never seen one says something about why Mazda didn't get sued: the Fiat design was a flop while the Miata was a huge success.
Sure, car companies make cars that are ripoffs of each other all the time (see any SUV), but not when the styling of the car is so distinctive, as is the case for the Vette or Firebird. Otherwise, why wouldn't cheap car manufacturers just make a replica of the Vette's body and put it on a v6 and sell it for $15k?
How about this. Ford "designs" a car that looks almost exactly like the Corvette. It has a different interior and the steering wheel's on the right side and it has a bigger engine. Oh, and a cup holder. But the body style is distinctly Corvette. Don't you think Chevy would complain? Don't you think they would have every right to?
I don't get why people seem to have this inbred hatred of Apple. First their open source efforts are just "not good enough" and now they fight to try and protect a design that has become their signature and they are some kind of pirates out to stop everybody from making computers to compete with iMac.
Listen, Apple is not doing anything wrong here. The eMachines computer was a clear design ripoff. Even the keyboard is practically identical. Like Jobs said, there were millions of designs they could have come up with, but instead they decided to copy a design Apple spent lots of money developing because it's a hot selling item. I don't see why people make Apple the bad guy here and simply exonerate eMachines from any wrongdoing. It's that "Apple Sucks" mentality that everybody seems to propagate, and these days it's really baseless, and very aggravating.
So you're saying most people DON'T use RedHat? People say things like "if big companies don't wake up to open source, they'll die," or something along those lines, but then Apple goes and does it and everybody thinks it's evil. Everything every company does is a strategic move. Apple realized that its OS wasn't exactly the most stable one around, so they're taking some serious hints from, well, the most stable OS around. Why everybody thinks this is some kind of incestual sin is beyond me. Apple Open Sourced it to try and get people to hack on it. Obviously it's going to be hard for a huge corporation to get the kind of grassroots support that Linux has gotten, especially one as despised by geeks as Apple (well, Mac), but they're trying. I think their heart's in the right place. Of course they have the profit motive, sure, but they want to stay alive just like RH and any other company, and if they see the wave of the future is Open Source and *nix based Operating Systems, why shouldn't they embrace it? I mean, it's not like they're trying to incorporate win2k into MacOS [shudder]. This is a proven, basically universally loved platform that they're trying to adopt. They are not moving to Open Source because it's "hip" (well, maybe a little), they're doing it because they see that that's where the future of the industry is headed.
Yeah yeah yeah, they didn't release the entire source code, and it's not under the GPL. Well could you imagine what would happen if MacOS was completely GPLed? Sure, the OS would probably improve by some orders of magnitude, but Apple would probably go out of business. It's easier to start a company out with a free product and figure out a way to sell it than it is to base a company on a pay product and then give it away. That's why Red Hat may actually make money, whereas Apple surely wouldn't if they gave away the entire source to their next-gen OS.
This is only mildly related to the topic, but did anybody hear Howard Stern on Monday? Some moron from Memphis called in, she said she worked at a magazine, and she asks Howard, "Did you see the blair witch project? Was that real?" and Howard mutes her and makes fun of her and stuff, and then he goes, "Yes, it was all real. The director of the FBI called me and the president of Artisan, the company that distributed the movie, in to a meeting to talk about this." He went on and on, and the moron was like, "Oh wow. Are you serious?" and Howard goes "Honey, I am totally serious." She goes, "You know, I thought it was real, but I wasn't sure, because some people are saying it isn't." Howard goes, "have you ever seen any of those actors before? If this was just a movie, would they hire somebody with a big ass to play the girl?" So he mutes her again and he goes, to the mic, "Watch this, I'm going to sell her the Brooklyn Bridge." And you know what? He actually sold her the Brooklyn Bridge. He told her for an investment of $300 a month, she could make up to $1500 per month from her cut of the tolls. "Are you serious?" Anyway, he did it. It was hilarious. Then he told her they're building a bridge from NY to VA, but he told her she couldn't get in on that deal, because he was buying the entire bridge.
Like I said, only remotely related to the topic, but it was hilarious. Hopefully E will show this one. Also on the show were a guy who had his Mom and wife strip to promote a movie, and a midget porno star.
That was Compaq that patented that, not IBM.
While I love the new pbs, the price of the system you listed is a bit high. For my money ($2249 educational) I got a 333 mhz, 4gb, 64 mb. I added an extra 128 mb for $99. DVD's just not worth the extra money, afaic, and if I change my mind I can just get the vst drive later.
Well I never tried running it dry, but my battery meter has never read more than 3:30, even after charging for days&days. one of the new powerbooks, mind you.
The term "Network Computer," or NC, seems to pop into my mind now... a computer that would have no hard drive and boot its OS from rom (or the network, even) and get all apps and stuff from the network. I didn't know they wanted everybody to pay for every byte though.
Wasn't Sun the company that came up with the rent-an-app model a few years ago, the one that Ballmer said MS was looking in to earlier this week? If so, just another case of MS trying to seem like innovators when they've really just stolen somebody else's idea.
See also: Windows (regardless of whether you think they stole it from Apple or Xerox).
If I register a domain with NSI for $70, can I renew it with this new company for their price?
Actually, Macs have Command instead of Alt (on the old keyboards) and still have a control. The Option key is there also.
Nothing is more useless, imho, than the Windows95 keys, which seem to serve the unique purpose of making the spacebar 3 inches long.
The best keyboard layout would be the PowerBook's if not for a few problems. First, it has a useless "Enter" key to the right of the spacebar, where there is traditionally a Cmd key. Fortunately this can be remapped. Second, the arrow keys are too small. Third, you should be able to use the f-keys to do anything. I mean, doesn't the F stand for function? I should be able to launch Netscape by pushing f5 if I want. The iBook lets you do that. Diehard keypad users who need to enter tons of numbers can set the numlock and the keypad gets mapped to the 789-uio-jkl-m,. keys. It fits the most useful stuff in the smallest space while maintaining a "full size" keyboard and drops the useless "print screen," "scroll lock, " and "pause" keys that I have never pressed. There, I pressed them. Wow.
Also, the Powerbook and iMac have the light for the Caps Lock button INSIDE the caps lock button. So if you want to see if it's on, you don't look on the other side of the keyboard.
The most useful key on the entire keyboard, of course, is the power button. Why have no other manufacturers picked up on this?
A poster above brought up a good point. I mean, can he not use an ATM or a microwave? What definition of "Computer" are they using? Isn't almost everything a computer now? I mean, what if he gets a job as a Janitor and he has to use a computerized time clock system? He can't take that job? Are they specifying this somewhere, or just leaving it up in the air?
What about Playstation and the like? Do those count as computers? How about Playstation 2, which will be more powerful than a normal computer? Hmmm? Anybody got any info on this?
Well the Starr Report was more graphic than even the pie-humping scene. How many times did they do it, did he ejaculate, etc, blah blah blah. I guess maybe perverted was the wrong word. The pie humping scene was incredibly FUNNY. The only thing remotely humorous about the whole Lewinsky BS was that we footed the bill for that extensive investigation. And that's only funny in a sad way.
But the point was that the government is exceedingly hypocritical. Did they make any attempt to stop use of the phrase "oral sex" on a daily basis on the nightly news? No. But don't let them se a pair of (admittedly awesome) breasts!! God forbid they see something at age 14 that 25 percent of them have already done!!! Heaven forbid!
Something rather unrelated to this that always offended me was this notion that kids can't know anything about sex until they reach some magical age. I mean, this is not the end of the world, they are not killing each other, this is sex. It is something that 99% of humans do. It is what we were designed for. But we can't tell anybody under age XX about that. In the US it still seems to be 17. How many sex jokes had you heard by age 17? Well, to me American Pie was the ultimate sex joke, albeit quite a bit more graphic. I went with my girlfriend and her 14 year old nephew, and he laughed his ass off the entire time. But you would not believe the hassle we had to go through to get him into the movie. The cashier told my girlfriend that "This is not a movie for kids," and "it is rated R for a reason," etc, and even got her manager. What the hell is up with this crap?
Mind you, I'm not advocating kiddie porn or giving bestiality magazines to 5 year olds or anything like that, but why do we impose an artificial age limit on when kids can "know" about sex? I mean, I got the condom lecture in health class in 7th grade, and in 6th grade there was a boy's sleepover at the school where they showed us weird things like a diagram of a penis and a vagina. THAT was weird. But at least it was an attempt. It seems that any information regarding sex that we show to kids is put through the sterilizer before we show it to them. I mean, everything I ever learned about sex ended up being rather useless when "the time" came. The glaring exception to that statement was the importance of condoms. The information about diseases and stuff was kind of helpful, but did you ever learn about blueballs in health class? It's a real condition, which I didn't learn until a couple of weeks ago on a sex-ed website for college students. Don't you think knowing the reason your nuts ache so terribly when you get really hard would have been far more useful then seeing pictures of a penis infected with syphillis?
I realize a lot of what schools do is because of what parents tell them to do, and that goes back to the hypocrisy thing. The parents of these children were just as wild as their offspring, yet they want to curb any knowledge that might be useful to them. Which goes back to the what started this whole thing, restricting access to information.
I guess I managed to go off on an incredibly long tangent when all you said was that American Pie was more perverse than the Starr Report. You're probably right, but the thing is that the Starr Report was all TRUE (or at least it was supposed to be). So in a sense that makes it sicker. But the point was more that the government that is so obsessed with "protecting the children" showed the ultimate hypocrisy by making the Starr Report and its associated disgusting things (hearing it every day on the news, etc) so freely available to everyone when nobody really cared, and then turning around and making a movie like American Pie unviewable by anyone under 17.
I wonder, if somebody released the script to American Pie and made that freely available on the Internet, what would happen? Would it be banned by the government? That same government that brought us the Starr Report?
Sigh.
disclaimer: I probably said some things in here without thinking them completely through, so if you think I'm saying all 5 year olds should be handed a copy of hustler, I'm not. But if you're thinking I'm saying all 13 year olds should be handed a copy of playboy, well, you're probably right.
Does not the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States state, quote,
?
It seems to me that Congress and/or the Senate is working in direct opposition to the cardinal principle on which this entire nation was founded. What possible purpose can this law serve? Do they think that preventing links to pages about marijuana will somehow stop drug problems? Haven't there been drug problems since long before the internet was even conceived? What is the point of this useless legislation?
I would like to take this opportunity to say that, square as it may sound, I have never used any drugs of any kind, except alcohol (the drug of choice today -- and forever, I'll wager). But I think that people have the freedom to do whatever they want to their own bodies, and any attempt by the government to limit what a person can do to him/herself is flat out wrong (as long as they are only hurting themselves, of course).
What makes this even more idiotic than the principle behind it is the fact that they are doing this with marijuana. Not crack, or heroin, but pot. Reefer. The drug that you KNOW everybody in the Senate, House, and White House has used at one time or another. Surely the most harmless drug available today, I'll bet even less harmful than alcohol, which can clearly be tied to problems like cirrhosis of the liver and drunk driving accidents. When was the last time you heard of someone dying from an overdose of weed? Come on.
I am sick and tired of our elected officials working to do things completely contradictory to the reasons we elected them. Who has ever voted for someone that said, "Vote for me, I'll restrict your access to information, but it'll be for your own good!"? But how many of us would love a candidate that said "Vote for me, I'll make all information available to you and let you make your own life decisions!" I sure would. But given politicians' reputations for keeping their words, the first one would probably be the better choice because at least he was telling the truth.
There are more important problems facing America today than trying to limit access to the incredible resources on the Internet. This is related to the thing Jon Katz wrote about kids not being able to see American Pie. Do you think any 14/15/16 year old is not mature enough to handle this stuff? Do you think they don't already have stacks of Playboys hidden away somewhere? Do you think the people who passed these asinine laws didn't have stacks of Playboys when they were 14?
I just don't see how the government can do the complete opposite of what everybody wants and then have the nerve to tell us it's for our own good. Maybe we can show them what we think of these stupid ideas when the next polls come around.
Oh, and this is the same government that sponsored the Starr Report, which was more perverted than American Pie, and probably more "morally damaging" than a movie or drugs could ever be, because it deals with infidelity, blowjobs, etc, and it's all TRUE.
Why don't we start a new campaign for the next election? We can call it "Get rid of the fucking hypocrites." You'll have my vote.
Hmm. Seems to be gone. How weird.
http://slashdot.org/cheesyportal.html
At least that's what it was last time I checked.
So are Roger Daltrey and Keith Moon going to be in this? I hope Townshend doesn't dick over the remaining members of the band like Zeppelin did with JPJ.
Actually I heard that they (the Who) all hated each other now and only got back together for monetary reasons. I wonder if they are going to use the already recorded versions of the songs, or record new ones.
(the Keith Moon thing was a joke, btw)
Anybody who likes today's rock has to pay homage to the great Zeppelin.
I searched for the MP3 of "Won't Get Fooled Again" for weeks and finally broke down and bought "Who's Next." The Liner notes are awesome (written by Townshend himself). He talks about how he fucked up the whole Lifehouse thing and the songs that he'd written became Who's Next. (He also talks about what a wonderful genius he is.)
I never was a fan of the who (give me Zeppelin any day), but Won't Get Fooled Again is truly an awesome song, and Behind Blue Eyes is great also.
I, too, would like to see what the "meaning" behind the songs was. "Teenage Wasteland..." "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." He said it was supposed to be about a Utopia or something.
(on a completely unrelated note, I would also like to know what the meanings are of those movies at the end of each level of Tekken 3. They're so weird, they confuse me. Jin sprouting wings and all...)
Oh, and it's "Baba O'Riley".