Though, why do they bother? Every piece of data you sent/recieve is already easy enough to monitor through known entities like Echelon, and probably unknown entities of greater strength. Are they just so lazy about sifting the stuff out on their own that they want Google's neat and tidy data base?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with protecting kids. This has everything to do with squeezing a strong emotional nerve to make the public jump and agree to invasive monitoring of everybody through yet another means. The government is not looking for molesters. They're looking for protesters.
The brownshirts are back.
-FL
Correction on my last post. . .
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 1
I bungled the typing in one of my statements my latest post adjacent. . . When I said, "Amazon made about $2000 from my work.", the correct figure should have been $1200.
They DO order in bulk--for books that will sell. Actually, Amazon is probably the only place a small publisher like you has a chance at all. Why in heaven's name would they want to buy from you in bulk? They know your self-published wonder book isn't going to sell. It would be stupid for them to buy in large quantity.
First of all, my 'wonder book' is one of several which sell in the thousands of copies. Yes, I'm small press, but I've generated about a half million dollars in retail sales.
Second, my sales track record with Amazon over a one year association with them saw about 200 unit sales. Again, not a big deal, but big enough I would think to earn an average of more than 1 or 2 copies per book per purchase order. (P.O.'s which they sent almost weekly for a whole year.) For this they demanded a 50% discount. It would have made a lot more sense for them to order a whole case of books once every two months rather than annoy my shipping department with silly orders.
Now, as to the fact that Amazon does not pay shipping. First of all, what does that have to do with anything? Neither does any bookstore.
It makes all the difference! --And actually, bookstores DO pay for shipping. If they want to stock their shelves, they have to pay the truck driver like everybody else. Amazon, however, required me to ship books to their sorting plants on my dime. The math worked like this. ..
On a 2 book purchase order, after giving a 50% discount, I grossed an average of about $12. Okay. Now, to ship those 2 books to Amazon via air mail, including packaging, it cost me around $10. --The price to print those two books was about $6, which leaves me in the hole to the tune of about $4 per order. This is why bulk discounts should only ever apply to bulk purchases. After a year of this nonsense, on sales which would normally have netted $800 or so, I ended up losing around $200. That's bad math!
--However because I paid to ship the books to Amazon, and because their customers paid to ship the books from Amazon. . , disregarding their sorting costs, Amazon made about $2000 from my work. I'm not inventing this. This is how it really works! I couldn't believe just how ridiculous Amazon was, when all the while, I was engaged in real and rational business deals with all my other distributors.
You see, every other book distributor I've ever dealt pays for shipping from me to them. Brodart Co., for instance, has a universal UPS account which it gives out to each publisher. I use this number to ship books to them, and they get the bill. If you have, as you say, worked in wholesale book sales, you would know that this kind of practice, or similar, is the industry standard. --And the distributor doesn't lose out, because they then charge the retailers and libraries who order from them to ship books the rest of the way along the chain. So in the end, the only people paying for the shipping are the end customers, which makes sense. Amazon, however, has somehow managed to put a hiccup in this practice without anybody even realizing it.
You're still claiming Amazon is skimming 40-50%, but the numbers simply do not add up. They only GET a 40-50% discount, they can't therefore also TAKE it. I couldn't find a paperback with LESS than a full 20% discount
Coraline by Neil Gaiman, Cover price, $5.99 Amazon price, $5.99 Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, Cover price, $6.99 Amazon price, $6.99
ou can criticize Israel all you want, my objection was for the sentence: "Either Spielberg was instructed to make his recent directorial choices, or he was showing just what a good and valuable little propagandist he can be, so please remember that when it comes time to ship off all the Jews to the new camps..." which seems to indicate either a Jewish cable, or upon rereading, a new kind of facsism. And the sentence, "Spielberg, by contrast, is just looking out for his Jewish rear-end." Both of these smack of anti-semitism.
How on Earth does suggesting that there is a subversive movement within the U.S. government which seeks to destroy Jews constitute an anti-semitic remark? --I would agree that it is perhaps an anti-U.S. remark, but anti-semitic? You said yourself, "[. ..] or upon rereading, a new kind of fascism." Yes! Exactly!
Furthermore, your reading of "Saving Private Ryan" is mistaken. SPR was a fictional story based on a real event, it showed the horror of war, the abuse of human beings on both sides--US soldiers hit a bunker with a flamethrower and an officer orders the men to let the Nazis burn rather than simply shooting them. It humanized soldiers, but it also showed their callousness and brutality.
How is my reading mistaken? What did I say that was factually incorrect?
The original true story was a calculated P.R. campaign. This is a fact. Spielberg warped it and tried to make it seem as though the motivations were purely compassionate when they most certainly were not. Why?
--And yes, Spielberg also showed the horror of war, and he humanized everybody, (including the military offices which started the damned thing in the first place.) --This may not seem so bad on the surface. (Nobody likes to think that there are psychopaths out there in charge of armies and governments.) --Spielberg's crime was that he did not question war itself. His vision and argument for reality lies in the very structures of reality he places his characters within. --In his directorial view, war simply IS, and people, even good people like you and me and all of the characters in his stories, are helpless to do anything but simply go along with that basic premise, which I feel I should point out, is completely false. This is the crime Spielberg commits, and this is why I say his works are apologist. --He did the same thing in "Terminal". --He made us feel sorry for the oppressor, and told us to go along with the oppressor's bullshit rather than condemning the choices of the oppressor and showing us that it's okay to stand up for ourselves when others make bad choices.
I also think you're wrong about "Terminal" which showed the incredible absurdity of the situation [. ..] The main character got what he wanted and more because his humanity outlasted the state's confusion.
No, no, no! There is nothing noble in this. "Terminal" deliberately made the state seem too big to fight. --Stupid and bumbling, yes, but also too big to question or overcome. It suggested that the only possible course of action when faced with government rule is to obey and to respect the bars of the cage, (or in this case the walls of the Terminal), and to make your miserable life as serviceable as possible within those state-ordained limits. It was all the more disgusting that the Terminal had open doors at all times, that the captive remained a captive through choice. --A brave film would show how to walk out of the cage altogether, how to break the rules and get away with it successfully. Hank's character was a willing captive who just happened to be good at gilding his hamster cage from the inside out. Big deal. That's what people do every day rather than actually solve the core problems in their lives.
"Catch Me If you Can" shows the state as bumbling, but ultimately triumphant, but that's what really happened! [. ..] Should they have spun the movie by ending the story in the midd
At least one doctor in England has proposed that every male over 40 should be on a statin drug, aspirin, and a beta blocker, since all these are well-tolerated and in most cases beneficial.
At least one doctor should be removed from practice.
Emotions are yours to learn how to deal with. Stop drinking coffee. Stop working/living under unhealhty stress. Get out of bad relationships. Stop eating foods which are not good for you.
I've gone through some difficult patches of stress and anxiety which I did not understand at the time. I found that paying attention to my health and my environment and my practices is what saw me through. I had to learn new techniques for living, all of which have given me a wider range of powers and abilities. Pills of this sort can derail the growth process.
The bottom line is that Amazon DOES NOT GET 50% as you claimed. For most books they get a few percentage points, no greater than any other wholesaler in the mix.
Get a handful of paperbacks from your shelf and look at their cover prices. Then check them out on Amazon. The chances are that significantly more than half of them are listed on Amazon at exactly that price, and those which are not are high-volume sales items and are typically only discounted by about 20-30%. Funny, huh? --Especially when Amazon's model should allow them to give at least a 40% discount on virtually EVERY book and still make a tidy profit. But that simply isn't how it is. Instead, Amazon engages in a common type of marketing which uses semantic tricks proven to give the average customer the impression that they are getting a good deal when they shop at a given outlet.
And there is absolutely no excuse for this.
Please remember, Amazon cannot be compared to other distributors because unlike other distributors, Amazon incurs NO shipping costs, maintains NO stock, and does NOT order in bulk. --These combined qualities pose a huge problem for a small or medium-sized publisher. Amazon should be skimming at most 10% of a cover price, which is the accepted and rational norm in the distribution game. But instead, they regularly take from 40% to 50%, and they do NOT pass a portion of that discount on to either retailer or customer.
I know these details from direct experience in dealing with Amazon as a publisher for more than a year, so I feel both justified and qualified to say it once again: Amazon does not play a fair game of ball.
What Amazon is is an aggregator. Amazon buys in bulk from the authors/publishers. That lets the author deal with one buyer rather than having to maintain a full-blown e-commerce site for the relatively low volume of books that any one author sells.
Actually, this is not true. I wish it was, but it's not. . .
One of the ways Amazon keeps its costs down is to keep as little as they can in stock, thereby limiting the need for warehouse space and maintenance staff. For small publishers, Amazon's largest 'bulk' order might be 2 copies of a title. Amazon basically makes storage each individual publisher's problem. I don't know how they handle Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, but for small press, it's 1 or 2 copies at a time. --And this remains the case even after a small press earns a year-long track-record at Amazon of their title selling seventy or more copies.
Is it more expensive to make forty small shipments to Amazon rather than one or two big shipments? You bet it is. Hundreds of dollars more.
Because, you see, Amazon, unlike most other book distributors, never pays for shipping from the Publisher. The publisher pays to ship books to Amazon's sorting department, and the end customer pays to have books shipped from Amazon to their door step. Amazon never buys a single stamp or pays a single FedEx bill. Nor do they have a fleet of trucks like most real distributors. Why should they when everybody else is paying to ship?
And for this 'service' Amazon feels right in taking a 50% cut of the book's cover price. --The remaining 50% must pay the publisher's production, printing and shipping costs. Is this reasonable? No, it is a damned rip-off. But that's Amazon.
Amazon is nothing but a glorified search engine. I use Amazon to find the title I'm after, and then I make a side sale directly with the publisher or used book store in question. At least then the money is going to people who have actually earned it.
I'm not sure I understand what all the paranoia about RFID identification cards is all about. Honestly, are we getting up in arms because our security through obscurity is no longer obscure?
Getting my pocket picked electronically doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to me. --But that's not what really bothers me. I suspect that whatever system the banks end up endorsing will see to it that this kind of theft is very hard to perpetrate, if they even endorse the system at all.
However. . .
The fact that an RFID signal can be tracked from orbit concerns me somewhat.
That is. . , you need to be within a meter or two for a reading unit to charge the RFID chip in your wallet, (or your belt-buckle, or the seam of your jeans, the handle of your razor blade, or whatever), but once the chip is charged, its broadcast goes out into infinity. There are indeed sensors powerful enough to track you wherever you go. This system allows for the ultimate in actualized state paranoia, where it is that much easier for everybody to be monitored.
Linked with the various other systems and data bases, it should be reasonably possible to keep tabs on everybody at all times. Should this bother you? That's up to you.
For my part, I know damned well it bothers me, because I think government should go hang itself, and I say so loudly and often. People like me tend to be among the first rounds of vanishings as fascism settles in.
-FL
Not to worry! The planning is already underway!
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 1
The whole point, (well, one of them, anyhow), of the current political mess the world is in right now, is preparation for exactly this kind of problem.
The TOP SCIENTISTS on this planet are owned by the various governments of the world. Black budget departments and corporations with ties to the military industrial complex own them. They can't afford not to. And they have the cash and the toys to woo, and the brute muscle and above-the-law tactics to enforce membership. It's really quite simple. --And further, the governments of the world, (or at least the shadow governments with all the power), know how to listen to their scientists.
So when these scientists using the technology us plebes don't have access to, (or even awareness of), tell their masters that, "Um, the planet is going to get hammered by comets and then ice-age whammied," their masters go, "Oh. Well that sucks. What do you recommend?"
We don't know what they recommend, but we can make some guesses. . .
1. Don't tell the population. We'd lose control of them.
2. Bring the populations under military rule so that we can control them very easily when the shit hits the fan. Do this by creating a false threat and by creating war-time conditions.
3. Perform a controlled kill-off with artifical diseases, etc., so that we can manage the limited food and energy supplies we will have available.
4. Build underground complexes so that those of us in the know will be able to weather the storm.
5. Try not to cringe too much while dealing with those fucking creepy UFO aliens who are acting just a little too smug and whose plans we don't have a full understanding of, but which scare the willies out of us. Smile a lot and pretend that we're in tight with them rather than being a prospective lunch. And kill that bastard, Peter Jennings, for doing his little documentary. Cancer ought to do it. And fire the other charismatic anchors who have name power but who are looking like they won't play ball. Got to keep it steady. ..
All of those things can be done now, YET ARE STILL EASILY DETECTED.
Your points are shit, and you're an idiot for suggesting them.
Well I certainly must be an idiot, because I can't understand what the heck you're talking about. Either that or you don't know how to communicate very well.
I don't know what 'things' you mean, and I don't know which 'shitty' points you are referring to. In the future, you might try both paraphrasing as well as actually attempting to explain your thoughts in such a manner that people who aren't you have some small hope of comprehending them.
Bikers? I am a biker(I ride a motorcyle). A lot of my friends are bikers. None of us are drug dealing, outlaw, Hell's Angel types. I've seen more disregard for authority in my vintage scuba friends.
What's with the hair-split patrol today? You're the third person to complain about something I've posted because of some silly semantic word play. Can you honestly tell me that you did not understand the point I was making?
First off "Terminal" showed the state, as Stanley Tucci's character, as a bumbling neurotic autocrat who could be defeated by someone who didn't know what was going on most of the time. "Catch Me if You Can" was based on a true story, and "Minority Report" showed the corruption inherent in state powers and in the police. While "Saving Private Ryan" ended with a sentinmental shot, the movie also showed, quite explicitly, the horror of war and the absolute atrocities committed by both sides.
Frankly, your post smacks of anti-semitism at worst and poor reading of films at best.
Oooooh. You're calling me "Anti-semitic". Shall I shrivel up and die now? Anybody who tries to talk objectively about Israel gets whacked with the emotionally charged "Anti-Semite" line, regardless of their actual alignment. I have nothing against the Jews. But I DO take issue with the Israeli government and the Zionist agenda, which are both patently anti-Jew, (and anti-human) as far as I can see.
Second of all. . . Just because "Catch Me If You Can" happened to be a true story, does not mean that it wasn't a FILM, or that a FILM cannot have spin and sociological effect, which it most certainly did.
In "Terminal", the "bumbling neurotic autocrat who could be defeated by someone who didn't know what was going on most of the time" was there to look non-threatening and human, so that the public would get a sense of sympathy and understanding for the oppressor; even though we didn't like him, we understood his position and knew he couldn't deviate from the laws. --And the rule system he represented was most certainly not defeated. The main character had to live in an airport terminal for the better part of a year until the state declared it legal for him to walk outdoors. How is that defeating the State? He was doing exactly as he was instructed no matter how ridiculous the situation really was.
As for "Saving Private Ryan". . . That whole movie was a very warped representation of how that "true story" unfolded. It had nothing to do with saving anybody. That mission was a PR damage control campaign run by the military after the press got hold of the bereaved mother's story during a time when public support for the war was essential. But Spielberg's film presented the story as though everybody involved really cared. It was an apologizist's argument for the military designed to make the military seem humane.
For that matter, the NSA is already a contributor to the Linux kernel, employs a maintainer (Stephen Smalley), and hosts a mailing list and web site on their module. But you can bet that a number of people review any changes they make.
It's not necessarily about overt control, (which I'm sure they would opt for if nobody was paying attention), so much as it is about placing rats and spooks in the workings so that influence can be exerted in some future way should the opportunities arise.
It's like making friends with addicts, bikers or mafia members. It's best to avoid contact altogether, or the next thing you know, you'll have crack deals going down in your living room.
Stevie boy can smell history on the wind, and he's been scrambling to position himself on the neo-con side of the ball park.
His last few films have been very much geared toward propping up the ideals of the state. --Painting the law to look like an immovable edifice we must all simply accept regardless of how fair or unfair the law really is. And that any defiance which happens, must do so within the boundaries set out by the law itself. --All the while, sending the message that deviating from those boundaries will inevitably lead to punishment, and that happiness and reward can only come when one gives up independence and chooses to align themselves with the state.
Both "Terminal" and "Catch Me If You Can" were deliberate bits of social engineering in the same spirit as, "Law & Order", designed to convey the "Resistance is Futile," message to the public. (Or as of late with L&O, "The State needs even more power and should allow prisoner abuse and torture because the bad guys are getting away!" Crap in both directions.) Either Spielberg was instructed to make his recent directorial choices, or he was showing just what a good and valuable little propagandist he can be, so please remember that when it comes time to ship off all the Jews to the new camps.
As for this latest offering, "Munich." From the IMDB. . .
"During the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, eleven Israeli athletes are taken hostage and murdered by a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September. In retaliation, the Israeli government recruits a group of Mossad agents to track down and execute those responsible for the attack."
Is there a pattern here?
Lucas's last three films may have been sloppy messes, but at least he was trying to illustrate and condemn the mechanics of fascism. Spielberg, by contrast, is just looking out for his Jewish rear-end. And this is the guy who directed Schindler's List! --It's easy to be a hero when the stakes are low, but when the fascists start to look real, that geek folds like a bad poker hand. --And right when people like Spielberg capable of pushing through films which could make a positive difference in the world.
I mean, for goodness sake! What kind of person makes a film to fuel public hatred of the Palestinians when Israel is in the middle of committing genocide on the Gaza Strip?
Spielberg, Schwarzenegger, Gibson. . . As the good guys from my childhood align themselves with the Beast, George Lucas, even with his madness, is looking better all the time!
Just what kind of 'security' do we all think the Homeland Office is really interested in here? Keeping our ports plugged up nice and tight, or being able to do data eavesdropping on all those troublesome citizens who simply refuse to conform to the state doctrine by using corporate software? You know, to protect us from so-called, 'terrorists'.
So when the LA Governor's office ordered the Red Cross to stay out of the Superdome - they were puppets of FEMA?
Nobody is FEMA's puppet. FEMA is a tool of the Federal government.
However, the stories I read early on during the crisis painted a picture where Blanco was following advisement offered by FEMA to restrict aid to the city in order to expedite evacuation. In this same spirit, the governor was told not to send in the city's fleet of 500 busses, because FEMA advised that they did not have air conditioning which could be dangerous to the victims, and that the state should wait until FEMA supplied better transport. She followed these and other instructions for two days until it became obvious that the feds were not planning to help, at which point she acted on her own.
And keep in mind, it was FEMA which did the bulk of rescue-prevention. They were certainly not acting under state orders or advisement.
The spin which has Blanco deliberately twiddling her thumbs by not making formal requests for federal assistance are also patently false. She asked and was ignored. The feds claimed to have taken two days to process the paperwork.
The stories I've seen which actively villify Blanco seem to be spearheaded by FOX news, one of the least subtle federal psyops assets. Blanco may have made bad calls, but she was a dupe.
It would be an interesting theory if the Superdome refuge center were a FEMA project.
Don't get caught in hair-splitting.
The primary federal measures, of which FEMA is a tool, were geared toward keeping outside and civilian rescue/aid efforts away, and toward delaying the execution of emergency aid worker duties for several days after Katrina had struck. The Superdome travesty was a direct result of deliberate federal mal-intent.
Q: Well, I can't go any further with that because I know nothing about rail-guns, not even what they are. Now, let me read this text:
"I have recently come into possession of a paper on magneto-gravitics and field resonance systems, presented by A.C. Holt from NASA Johnson Space Center to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' 16th Joint Propulsion Conference, June 30-July 2, 1980. Holt presents a project using an already existing system known as the Coherent Field and Energy Resonance System (CoFERS) [probably located at Los Alamos Labs' High Magnetic Field Research Laboratory]. CoFERS utilizes a toroidal-shaped energy guide with mega gauss magnetic field sources located along radius vectors equally spaced around the toroid. CoFERS is shaped like a thick flying disc. Holt goes on to say: "By converying an object's normal space-time energy pattern to an energy pattern which differs substantially from the normal pattern, the gravitational forces acting on the object are changed. The object's new pattern interacts with the surrounding space-time and virtual energy patterns, such that the interactive forces are substantially altered. The alteration of the characteristics of the continuous field of force results in the apparent motion of the object *through space-time*." [...] "Since the gravitational forces acting on the propulsion system can be quickly altered to achieve the desired motion, the *spacecraft* can make right-angle turns at very-high velocities without adversely affecting the crew or system elements. The effective gravitational field the *spacecraft/ aircraft* experiences can be nearly simultaneously reoriented at a 90-degree angle, resulting in a smooth continuous motion as far as the occupants are concerned." [... ] "The gravimagnetic system is perhaps best suited for use in and around... a large mass such as the Earth." "While the gravimagnetic system is likely to be the first field-dependent propulsion system developed, the field resonance system will **bring stellar and galactic travel out of the realm of science fiction**. The field resonance system artificially generates an energy pattern which precisely matches or resonates with a virtual pattern associated with a distent space-time point. According to the model, if a fundamental or precise resonance is established, (using hydro magnetic wave fine- tuning techniques), the spacecraft will be very strongly and equally repelled by surrounding virtual patterns. At the same time, through the virtual many-dimensional structure of space-time, a very strong attraction with the virtual pattern of a distant space-time point will exist....this combination of very strong forces will result in the translocation of the spacecraft from its initial position through the many-dimensional virtual structure to the distant space-time point. [... ] "A space-time 'jump' already appears to be supported by astrophysical research."
Having read this text, my thought is that it is very similar to what I was talking about earlier today, and which was explicated by Karl von Eckertshausen in regards to the 'violin allegory.' That is, that a violin string tuned to a particular pitch, if plucked, will cause the identical string on another violin across the room tuned to the same pitch to sound also. However, it seems that what they are doing here is setting up a 'pitch' in this object which actually exists somewhere else. And, by creating this resonance, it 'becomes' or disappears from this point in space/time where its resonance is no longer appropriate, and reappears at the point in space/time where the 'tuned resonance' actually exists. It is both virtual and real. Is this text on the right track, and am I understanding it correctly?
A: Propulsion system for 3rd and 4th density Alien spacecraft.
The Sony book looks like it was designed for a person standing or sitting.
True, I do read books while sitting on the toilet, and sometimes in chairs, but I am happiest when I am reading while lying in bed. Lying in bed is the very best way to read, I think because you are comfortable and cozy and open to the data you are exposing yourself to. Stuff sticks better when you're at rest and not worrying about your body and environment.
The Sony device, however, has it's navigation wheel on the bottom right corner. --This is exactly the least-comfortable place for a control node to be when I am lying down. The designers should lie down with a paperback book and see where their hands fall. They should lie on both sides and find the common spot/s where it is comfortable to hold a book, and put navigation buttons there.
This is not difficult thinking. Surely designers read books, right?
Anyway, if the device is going to be really great, it should also have a USB keyboard input, an embedded word processor, and a flashcard slot. The screen should also be easy to read at an angle and should not have any reflection problems or daylight viewing issues.
I figure when somebody makes a good device, the end of the world will be upon us because by then it won't matter.
When the problems in a dream resolve, the dream ends.
Existence in this reality will always be problematic.
Your points are only valid in as much as there are people out there who would try to hurt or abuse you for personal or national gain if they learn your secret information.
In a world where there are Sharks like this, there will inevitably be Sharks within your own walls. It's a flaw in the human condition and therefore, as we have seen from countless examples, the systems we use to keep secrets will be abused by Sharks trying to hurt the people they are supposed to protect for their personal gain.
It is a not necessarily a no-win situation. You can pursue a life which does not interest Sharks, you can learn how to avoid, repel and kill Sharks on a personal level, or you can leave the Shark Tank altogether.
Believing, however, that the secret organizations and the government in general is benign and exists with the pure intent to help you and protect you, is like swimming with your eyes shut. The Sharks like that.
I know people who have worked at Area 51. Let me just say you conspiracy freaks need a more productive and useful hobby. Put down your Art Bell "end of the world" book and go out and get some sun.
Really? Who are the people you know and what did they tell you?
Seriously, CmdrTaco, I think you guys are doing and have been doing an absolutely fantastic job for years now. The simple fact that this site has existed in the form that it has done for so long is utterly remarkable when compared to the rest of the internet. I really dig the forums; the self-regulation and editorial hands-off approach, which I think is proof positive that given the right construct and rules set to work within, humans can go about their affairs in a very effective manner.
It seems to me that the problems you mention probably seem large because you are looking at Slashdot from the perspective of being one of its parents and on-going creators and not as one of its average readers. I have never actually noticed the problems you have mentioned. Not once.
Here is the crux. . .
The average reader is entirely capable of doing his/her own skimming and content filtering while reading through any given forum. Every comment on every story, realistically, is not going to get read by the average Slashdot reader. Heck, I only read about 20% of the stories put up on the main page anyway. Readers don't want to waste their own time, and so they automatically learn how to skim. This is probably why everybody clicked so instantly with the term, "Surfing the Web" when it was first invented. You surf, you don't swim, or try to drink the entire ocean.
If people post garbage about the story poster, then I give it the hundredth of a second of my attention it deserves, and move on until I find a post which is interesting, (and like I said, I have yet to notice even a single instance of this kind of response in the five years I've been reading Slashdot. That's pretty good auto-filtering!). The self-moderation of the site also works rather well; the "Off Topic" mod seems to keep the bullshit factor down nicely.
So all in all, it's interesting to hear from your perspective, but realistically, I really don't think that there is ANY problem here at all. My enjoyment and illumination through Slashdot hasn't been impaired in the slightest by the kinds of posts you are talking about.
1) Being stupid, but desiring good for others. 2) Being led by desires without thinking of consequences for others.
Your statement is in category #2, but the other statement is in category #1. They are totally unrelated if you examine them further.
True enough.
However, the problem is that destructive acts which might well be attributed to stupid people are rather often in fact perpetrated by malicious stupid people. I've seen this time and again. For the simple sake of self-preservation, I find it wise to not forgive and forget malice by simply assuming misguided good intentions and allowing the perpetrator to go about his business in the hopes that he will attempt to self-correct upon observing the results of his actions.
A good intentioned person can learn, whereas a shark is a shark. It's best not to assume innocence but to look at the scenario to find out exactly what is really going on so as to enable truly informed action.
Nibiru as a planet seems very plausible to me. I don't know about any of that other stuff you seem concerned about. The Sumerians knew about all the planets that we knew about plus some, and now we're finding stuff bigger than Pluto out there.
Well, sure, there are other objects out there, but when you say, 'Nibiru', it's important to be specific. There's the Sumerian name which I think refers to a comet cluster which appears as a single body upon its approach, and which would indeed result in disastrous effects upon arrival. And then. . .
There's Sitchin's version of the tenth planet which according to him and his believers is an artificially piloted planet filled with aliens who are coming to get us. On my implauso-meter, that ranks a lot higher than comets.
This is not to say, of course, that I find aliens implausible. I just don't think they descend from Sitchin's silly fable which I find resonates heavily with cultic/mad-scientist thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, this has nothing to do with protecting kids. This has everything to do with squeezing a strong emotional nerve to make the public jump and agree to invasive monitoring of everybody through yet another means. The government is not looking for molesters. They're looking for protesters.
The brownshirts are back.
-FL
Either way, they made out alright.
-FL
They DO order in bulk--for books that will sell. Actually, Amazon is probably the only place a small publisher like you has a chance at all. Why in heaven's name would they want to buy from you in bulk? They know your self-published wonder book isn't going to sell. It would be stupid for them to buy in large quantity.
.
First of all, my 'wonder book' is one of several which sell in the thousands of copies. Yes, I'm small press, but I've generated about a half million dollars in retail sales.
Second, my sales track record with Amazon over a one year association with them saw about 200 unit sales. Again, not a big deal, but big enough I would think to earn an average of more than 1 or 2 copies per book per purchase order. (P.O.'s which they sent almost weekly for a whole year.) For this they demanded a 50% discount. It would have made a lot more sense for them to order a whole case of books once every two months rather than annoy my shipping department with silly orders.
Now, as to the fact that Amazon does not pay shipping. First of all, what does that have to do with anything? Neither does any bookstore.
It makes all the difference! --And actually, bookstores DO pay for shipping. If they want to stock their shelves, they have to pay the truck driver like everybody else. Amazon, however, required me to ship books to their sorting plants on my dime. The math worked like this. .
On a 2 book purchase order, after giving a 50% discount, I grossed an average of about $12. Okay. Now, to ship those 2 books to Amazon via air mail, including packaging, it cost me around $10. --The price to print those two books was about $6, which leaves me in the hole to the tune of about $4 per order. This is why bulk discounts should only ever apply to bulk purchases. After a year of this nonsense, on sales which would normally have netted $800 or so, I ended up losing around $200. That's bad math!
--However because I paid to ship the books to Amazon, and because their customers paid to ship the books from Amazon. . , disregarding their sorting costs, Amazon made about $2000 from my work. I'm not inventing this. This is how it really works! I couldn't believe just how ridiculous Amazon was, when all the while, I was engaged in real and rational business deals with all my other distributors.
You see, every other book distributor I've ever dealt pays for shipping from me to them. Brodart Co., for instance, has a universal UPS account which it gives out to each publisher. I use this number to ship books to them, and they get the bill. If you have, as you say, worked in wholesale book sales, you would know that this kind of practice, or similar, is the industry standard. --And the distributor doesn't lose out, because they then charge the retailers and libraries who order from them to ship books the rest of the way along the chain. So in the end, the only people paying for the shipping are the end customers, which makes sense. Amazon, however, has somehow managed to put a hiccup in this practice without anybody even realizing it.
You're still claiming Amazon is skimming 40-50%, but the numbers simply do not add up. They only GET a 40-50% discount, they can't therefore also TAKE it. I couldn't find a paperback with LESS than a full 20% discount
Coraline by Neil Gaiman, Cover price, $5.99 Amazon price, $5.99
Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, Cover price, $6.99 Amazon price, $6.99
ou can criticize Israel all you want, my objection was for the sentence: "Either Spielberg was instructed to make his recent directorial choices, or he was showing just what a good and valuable little propagandist he can be, so please remember that when it comes time to ship off all the Jews to the new camps..." which seems to indicate either a Jewish cable, or upon rereading, a new kind of facsism. And the sentence, "Spielberg, by contrast, is just looking out for his Jewish rear-end." Both of these smack of anti-semitism.
.] or upon rereading, a new kind of fascism." Yes! Exactly!
.] The main character got what he wanted and more because his humanity outlasted the state's confusion.
.] Should they have spun the movie by ending the story in the midd
How on Earth does suggesting that there is a subversive movement within the U.S. government which seeks to destroy Jews constitute an anti-semitic remark? --I would agree that it is perhaps an anti-U.S. remark, but anti-semitic? You said yourself, "[. .
Furthermore, your reading of "Saving Private Ryan" is mistaken. SPR was a fictional story based on a real event, it showed the horror of war, the abuse of human beings on both sides--US soldiers hit a bunker with a flamethrower and an officer orders the men to let the Nazis burn rather than simply shooting them. It humanized soldiers, but it also showed their callousness and brutality.
How is my reading mistaken? What did I say that was factually incorrect?
The original true story was a calculated P.R. campaign. This is a fact. Spielberg warped it and tried to make it seem as though the motivations were purely compassionate when they most certainly were not. Why?
--And yes, Spielberg also showed the horror of war, and he humanized everybody, (including the military offices which started the damned thing in the first place.) --This may not seem so bad on the surface. (Nobody likes to think that there are psychopaths out there in charge of armies and governments.) --Spielberg's crime was that he did not question war itself. His vision and argument for reality lies in the very structures of reality he places his characters within. --In his directorial view, war simply IS, and people, even good people like you and me and all of the characters in his stories, are helpless to do anything but simply go along with that basic premise, which I feel I should point out, is completely false. This is the crime Spielberg commits, and this is why I say his works are apologist. --He did the same thing in "Terminal". --He made us feel sorry for the oppressor, and told us to go along with the oppressor's bullshit rather than condemning the choices of the oppressor and showing us that it's okay to stand up for ourselves when others make bad choices.
I also think you're wrong about "Terminal" which showed the incredible absurdity of the situation [. .
No, no, no! There is nothing noble in this. "Terminal" deliberately made the state seem too big to fight. --Stupid and bumbling, yes, but also too big to question or overcome. It suggested that the only possible course of action when faced with government rule is to obey and to respect the bars of the cage, (or in this case the walls of the Terminal), and to make your miserable life as serviceable as possible within those state-ordained limits. It was all the more disgusting that the Terminal had open doors at all times, that the captive remained a captive through choice. --A brave film would show how to walk out of the cage altogether, how to break the rules and get away with it successfully. Hank's character was a willing captive who just happened to be good at gilding his hamster cage from the inside out. Big deal. That's what people do every day rather than actually solve the core problems in their lives.
"Catch Me If you Can" shows the state as bumbling, but ultimately triumphant, but that's what really happened! [. .
At least one doctor should be removed from practice.
Emotions are yours to learn how to deal with. Stop drinking coffee. Stop working/living under unhealhty stress. Get out of bad relationships. Stop eating foods which are not good for you.
I've gone through some difficult patches of stress and anxiety which I did not understand at the time. I found that paying attention to my health and my environment and my practices is what saw me through. I had to learn new techniques for living, all of which have given me a wider range of powers and abilities. Pills of this sort can derail the growth process.
-FL
Get a handful of paperbacks from your shelf and look at their cover prices. Then check them out on Amazon. The chances are that significantly more than half of them are listed on Amazon at exactly that price, and those which are not are high-volume sales items and are typically only discounted by about 20-30%. Funny, huh? --Especially when Amazon's model should allow them to give at least a 40% discount on virtually EVERY book and still make a tidy profit. But that simply isn't how it is. Instead, Amazon engages in a common type of marketing which uses semantic tricks proven to give the average customer the impression that they are getting a good deal when they shop at a given outlet.
And there is absolutely no excuse for this.
Please remember, Amazon cannot be compared to other distributors because unlike other distributors, Amazon incurs NO shipping costs, maintains NO stock, and does NOT order in bulk. --These combined qualities pose a huge problem for a small or medium-sized publisher. Amazon should be skimming at most 10% of a cover price, which is the accepted and rational norm in the distribution game. But instead, they regularly take from 40% to 50%, and they do NOT pass a portion of that discount on to either retailer or customer.
I know these details from direct experience in dealing with Amazon as a publisher for more than a year, so I feel both justified and qualified to say it once again: Amazon does not play a fair game of ball.
-FL
Actually, this is not true. I wish it was, but it's not. . .
One of the ways Amazon keeps its costs down is to keep as little as they can in stock, thereby limiting the need for warehouse space and maintenance staff. For small publishers, Amazon's largest 'bulk' order might be 2 copies of a title. Amazon basically makes storage each individual publisher's problem. I don't know how they handle Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, but for small press, it's 1 or 2 copies at a time. --And this remains the case even after a small press earns a year-long track-record at Amazon of their title selling seventy or more copies.
Is it more expensive to make forty small shipments to Amazon rather than one or two big shipments? You bet it is. Hundreds of dollars more.
Because, you see, Amazon, unlike most other book distributors, never pays for shipping from the Publisher. The publisher pays to ship books to Amazon's sorting department, and the end customer pays to have books shipped from Amazon to their door step. Amazon never buys a single stamp or pays a single FedEx bill. Nor do they have a fleet of trucks like most real distributors. Why should they when everybody else is paying to ship?
And for this 'service' Amazon feels right in taking a 50% cut of the book's cover price. --The remaining 50% must pay the publisher's production, printing and shipping costs. Is this reasonable? No, it is a damned rip-off. But that's Amazon.
Amazon is nothing but a glorified search engine. I use Amazon to find the title I'm after, and then I make a side sale directly with the publisher or used book store in question. At least then the money is going to people who have actually earned it.
-FL
Getting my pocket picked electronically doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to me. --But that's not what really bothers me. I suspect that whatever system the banks end up endorsing will see to it that this kind of theft is very hard to perpetrate, if they even endorse the system at all.
However. . .
The fact that an RFID signal can be tracked from orbit concerns me somewhat.
That is. . , you need to be within a meter or two for a reading unit to charge the RFID chip in your wallet, (or your belt-buckle, or the seam of your jeans, the handle of your razor blade, or whatever), but once the chip is charged, its broadcast goes out into infinity. There are indeed sensors powerful enough to track you wherever you go. This system allows for the ultimate in actualized state paranoia, where it is that much easier for everybody to be monitored.
Linked with the various other systems and data bases, it should be reasonably possible to keep tabs on everybody at all times. Should this bother you? That's up to you.
For my part, I know damned well it bothers me, because I think government should go hang itself, and I say so loudly and often. People like me tend to be among the first rounds of vanishings as fascism settles in.
-FL
The TOP SCIENTISTS on this planet are owned by the various governments of the world. Black budget departments and corporations with ties to the military industrial complex own them. They can't afford not to. And they have the cash and the toys to woo, and the brute muscle and above-the-law tactics to enforce membership. It's really quite simple. --And further, the governments of the world, (or at least the shadow governments with all the power), know how to listen to their scientists.
So when these scientists using the technology us plebes don't have access to, (or even awareness of), tell their masters that, "Um, the planet is going to get hammered by comets and then ice-age whammied," their masters go, "Oh. Well that sucks. What do you recommend?"
We don't know what they recommend, but we can make some guesses. . .
-FL
Your points are shit, and you're an idiot for suggesting them.
Well I certainly must be an idiot, because I can't understand what the heck you're talking about. Either that or you don't know how to communicate very well.
I don't know what 'things' you mean, and I don't know which 'shitty' points you are referring to. In the future, you might try both paraphrasing as well as actually attempting to explain your thoughts in such a manner that people who aren't you have some small hope of comprehending them.
-FL
What's with the hair-split patrol today? You're the third person to complain about something I've posted because of some silly semantic word play. Can you honestly tell me that you did not understand the point I was making?
-FL
Frankly, your post smacks of anti-semitism at worst and poor reading of films at best.
Oooooh. You're calling me "Anti-semitic". Shall I shrivel up and die now? Anybody who tries to talk objectively about Israel gets whacked with the emotionally charged "Anti-Semite" line, regardless of their actual alignment. I have nothing against the Jews. But I DO take issue with the Israeli government and the Zionist agenda, which are both patently anti-Jew, (and anti-human) as far as I can see.
Second of all. . . Just because "Catch Me If You Can" happened to be a true story, does not mean that it wasn't a FILM, or that a FILM cannot have spin and sociological effect, which it most certainly did.
In "Terminal", the "bumbling neurotic autocrat who could be defeated by someone who didn't know what was going on most of the time" was there to look non-threatening and human, so that the public would get a sense of sympathy and understanding for the oppressor; even though we didn't like him, we understood his position and knew he couldn't deviate from the laws. --And the rule system he represented was most certainly not defeated. The main character had to live in an airport terminal for the better part of a year until the state declared it legal for him to walk outdoors. How is that defeating the State? He was doing exactly as he was instructed no matter how ridiculous the situation really was.
As for "Saving Private Ryan". . . That whole movie was a very warped representation of how that "true story" unfolded. It had nothing to do with saving anybody. That mission was a PR damage control campaign run by the military after the press got hold of the bereaved mother's story during a time when public support for the war was essential. But Spielberg's film presented the story as though everybody involved really cared. It was an apologizist's argument for the military designed to make the military seem humane.
-FL
It's not necessarily about overt control, (which I'm sure they would opt for if nobody was paying attention), so much as it is about placing rats and spooks in the workings so that influence can be exerted in some future way should the opportunities arise.
It's like making friends with addicts, bikers or mafia members. It's best to avoid contact altogether, or the next thing you know, you'll have crack deals going down in your living room.
-FL
His last few films have been very much geared toward propping up the ideals of the state. --Painting the law to look like an immovable edifice we must all simply accept regardless of how fair or unfair the law really is. And that any defiance which happens, must do so within the boundaries set out by the law itself. --All the while, sending the message that deviating from those boundaries will inevitably lead to punishment, and that happiness and reward can only come when one gives up independence and chooses to align themselves with the state.
Both "Terminal" and "Catch Me If You Can" were deliberate bits of social engineering in the same spirit as, "Law & Order", designed to convey the "Resistance is Futile," message to the public. (Or as of late with L&O, "The State needs even more power and should allow prisoner abuse and torture because the bad guys are getting away!" Crap in both directions.) Either Spielberg was instructed to make his recent directorial choices, or he was showing just what a good and valuable little propagandist he can be, so please remember that when it comes time to ship off all the Jews to the new camps.
As for this latest offering, "Munich." From the IMDB. . .
Is there a pattern here?
Lucas's last three films may have been sloppy messes, but at least he was trying to illustrate and condemn the mechanics of fascism. Spielberg, by contrast, is just looking out for his Jewish rear-end. And this is the guy who directed Schindler's List! --It's easy to be a hero when the stakes are low, but when the fascists start to look real, that geek folds like a bad poker hand. --And right when people like Spielberg capable of pushing through films which could make a positive difference in the world.
I mean, for goodness sake! What kind of person makes a film to fuel public hatred of the Palestinians when Israel is in the middle of committing genocide on the Gaza Strip?
Spielberg, Schwarzenegger, Gibson. . . As the good guys from my childhood align themselves with the Beast, George Lucas, even with his madness, is looking better all the time!
-FL
Remember the NSA tags in Microsoft code?
Just what kind of 'security' do we all think the Homeland Office is really interested in here? Keeping our ports plugged up nice and tight, or being able to do data eavesdropping on all those troublesome citizens who simply refuse to conform to the state doctrine by using corporate software? You know, to protect us from so-called, 'terrorists'.
If you make deals with the devil, you will lose.
-FL
Nobody is FEMA's puppet. FEMA is a tool of the Federal government.
However, the stories I read early on during the crisis painted a picture where Blanco was following advisement offered by FEMA to restrict aid to the city in order to expedite evacuation. In this same spirit, the governor was told not to send in the city's fleet of 500 busses, because FEMA advised that they did not have air conditioning which could be dangerous to the victims, and that the state should wait until FEMA supplied better transport. She followed these and other instructions for two days until it became obvious that the feds were not planning to help, at which point she acted on her own.
And keep in mind, it was FEMA which did the bulk of rescue-prevention. They were certainly not acting under state orders or advisement.
The spin which has Blanco deliberately twiddling her thumbs by not making formal requests for federal assistance are also patently false. She asked and was ignored. The feds claimed to have taken two days to process the paperwork.
The stories I've seen which actively villify Blanco seem to be spearheaded by FOX news, one of the least subtle federal psyops assets. Blanco may have made bad calls, but she was a dupe.
-FL
Don't get caught in hair-splitting.
The primary federal measures, of which FEMA is a tool, were geared toward keeping outside and civilian rescue/aid efforts away, and toward delaying the execution of emergency aid worker duties for several days after Katrina had struck. The Superdome travesty was a direct result of deliberate federal mal-intent.
-FL
Real or not? I tend to giv
True, I do read books while sitting on the toilet, and sometimes in chairs, but I am happiest when I am reading while lying in bed. Lying in bed is the very best way to read, I think because you are comfortable and cozy and open to the data you are exposing yourself to. Stuff sticks better when you're at rest and not worrying about your body and environment.
The Sony device, however, has it's navigation wheel on the bottom right corner. --This is exactly the least-comfortable place for a control node to be when I am lying down. The designers should lie down with a paperback book and see where their hands fall. They should lie on both sides and find the common spot/s where it is comfortable to hold a book, and put navigation buttons there.
This is not difficult thinking. Surely designers read books, right?
Anyway, if the device is going to be really great, it should also have a USB keyboard input, an embedded word processor, and a flashcard slot. The screen should also be easy to read at an angle and should not have any reflection problems or daylight viewing issues.
I figure when somebody makes a good device, the end of the world will be upon us because by then it won't matter.
When the problems in a dream resolve, the dream ends.
-FL
Your points are only valid in as much as there are people out there who would try to hurt or abuse you for personal or national gain if they learn your secret information.
In a world where there are Sharks like this, there will inevitably be Sharks within your own walls. It's a flaw in the human condition and therefore, as we have seen from countless examples, the systems we use to keep secrets will be abused by Sharks trying to hurt the people they are supposed to protect for their personal gain.
It is a not necessarily a no-win situation. You can pursue a life which does not interest Sharks, you can learn how to avoid, repel and kill Sharks on a personal level, or you can leave the Shark Tank altogether.
Believing, however, that the secret organizations and the government in general is benign and exists with the pure intent to help you and protect you, is like swimming with your eyes shut. The Sharks like that.
-FL
FEMA got exactly what they wanted out of Katrina.
The sports dome concentration camp was a working excercise, not a failure. You have every reason to be concerned.
-FL
Really? Who are the people you know and what did they tell you?
-FL
It seems to me that the problems you mention probably seem large because you are looking at Slashdot from the perspective of being one of its parents and on-going creators and not as one of its average readers. I have never actually noticed the problems you have mentioned. Not once.
Here is the crux. . .
The average reader is entirely capable of doing his/her own skimming and content filtering while reading through any given forum. Every comment on every story, realistically, is not going to get read by the average Slashdot reader. Heck, I only read about 20% of the stories put up on the main page anyway. Readers don't want to waste their own time, and so they automatically learn how to skim. This is probably why everybody clicked so instantly with the term, "Surfing the Web" when it was first invented. You surf, you don't swim, or try to drink the entire ocean.
If people post garbage about the story poster, then I give it the hundredth of a second of my attention it deserves, and move on until I find a post which is interesting, (and like I said, I have yet to notice even a single instance of this kind of response in the five years I've been reading Slashdot. That's pretty good auto-filtering!). The self-moderation of the site also works rather well; the "Off Topic" mod seems to keep the bullshit factor down nicely.
So all in all, it's interesting to hear from your perspective, but realistically, I really don't think that there is ANY problem here at all. My enjoyment and illumination through Slashdot hasn't been impaired in the slightest by the kinds of posts you are talking about.
Thanks again for providing Slashdot. Cheers!
-FL
1) Being stupid, but desiring good for others.
2) Being led by desires without thinking of consequences for others.
Your statement is in category #2, but the other statement is in category #1. They are totally unrelated if you examine them further.
True enough.
However, the problem is that destructive acts which might well be attributed to stupid people are rather often in fact perpetrated by malicious stupid people. I've seen this time and again. For the simple sake of self-preservation, I find it wise to not forgive and forget malice by simply assuming misguided good intentions and allowing the perpetrator to go about his business in the hopes that he will attempt to self-correct upon observing the results of his actions.
A good intentioned person can learn, whereas a shark is a shark. It's best not to assume innocence but to look at the scenario to find out exactly what is really going on so as to enable truly informed action.
-FL
Well, sure, there are other objects out there, but when you say, 'Nibiru', it's important to be specific. There's the Sumerian name which I think refers to a comet cluster which appears as a single body upon its approach, and which would indeed result in disastrous effects upon arrival. And then. . .
There's Sitchin's version of the tenth planet which according to him and his believers is an artificially piloted planet filled with aliens who are coming to get us. On my implauso-meter, that ranks a lot higher than comets.
This is not to say, of course, that I find aliens implausible. I just don't think they descend from Sitchin's silly fable which I find resonates heavily with cultic/mad-scientist thinking.
-FL