Oh, don't get me wrong, I am an academic snob. I like to sound as much as possible like Mr. Burns in whatever I write. My home page is entirely about trying to prolong academia into the post-collegiate milieu.
Like how I tucked "milieu" into there?:)
"Uh, excuse me, but... 'proactive'? 'Paradigm'? Aren't these just words dumb people use to sound important?...Uh, I'm fired, aren't I?
As usual I agree but as a journalist he should really provide some more examples! So I'll take that leap for him. I graduated the University of Virginia a bit over a year ago. While I was there...
The campus became a regular campsite for companies trying to hawk their products. For example,
Glamour Magazine was allowed to set up a tent on the illustrious Lawn, hawking products, trying to enlist subscribers, scouting for models, selling poor self-image.
Football fields and buildings, and renovations (and benches and tables and lightswitches) were named in honor of donors, as usual, but the donors were moving in corporate directions. The main building of our Darden School of Business is called the Pepsi Forum (it's should be no surprise that you can't get Coke in there).
I first spotted the Reebok logo appearing on our football players in my third or fourth year, although it had probably been there all along; perhaps they increased the size.
(I'm sure there are more examples I've forgotten.)
I don't think Katz adequately addressed the issue of why corporate sponsorship is a problem. In my opinion, such contributions are like the system of patronage that strangled the painting world for many years (and continues to, I believe). You can't really bite the hand that feeds you and then expect another bite. I think it is safe to assume that research at UVA is not going to suddenly announce that caffeine and sugar combine to form toxins that eat your brain... Such systems dilute the value of the research, and also direct it away from "pure research" (as opposed to profit-research) which tends to lead the way in advances that actually help society.
(Incidentally, UVA hosts one of the two crash test research centers that use actual human cadavers in the car; the other is the University of Heidelberg... "Hey, those aren't dummies!")
As long as we're on the subject of Gnutella abuses, can anyone explain to me the weird Usenet addresses I'm getting when I do GNUtella searches these days? Things like:
www.usenet-replayer.com/short-archive/part/alt/fre aky/things/done/with/dishware/17852: How to turn a plate into a vibrator - pladiddilio@asjkgfasg.com
...only I get about 60 of 'em for any search. Is this some kind of strange ad? Or what? I had the feeling these filenames might actually be randomly generated just to take up space and slow down the Gnutella net, or something. But overall I don't see any point in it.
Re:Advertising in Gnuella a good thing?
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 1
Keep in mind that no online company using advertising as its profit model has made any money.
Choices other than abortion? Such as giving birth? If there is another third option I would like to hear about it. It might help the women who will die if they give birth--and I happen to know one, so I don't want to hear any shit.
There are retroactive alternatives--i.e. using birth control beforehand--but they won't do a pregnant woman much good.
If you want to talk about orphanages, well, those were proven to cause low IQs way back in the 1940s or thereabouts by child development psychologists. Adoption by foster parents, meanwhile, is an acceptable alternative. I haven't heard about any attempt to suppress information about either one, in any case. Every pro-choice person I have met is in favor of adoption measures and so forth whenever abortion can be avoided. You make abortion out to be like a trip to an amusement park; these things are not easy decisions or actions and they tend to tear a girl's life apart. *Nobody* thinks abortions are substitutes for birth control. Accidents happen, though.
What I really don't understand is how you can justify your gas-guzzling environment-destroying SUV and then claim you want to protect unborn children. It reeks of odious hypocrisy. Why have children if they're going to enter an unliveable world?
But I don't want to get started. There's no concluding this argument and I'm wasting my time.
This notion that "all women are pro abortion" is a blatent lie.
Only an idiot would say otherwise. I certainly said nothing of the kind. But I know the statistic is out there (somewhere) that more men are anti-abortion than women; if I didn't have a job, I'd put some effort into finding it. Unfortunately if you do a search for anything related to abortion you don't get facts but rhetoric (admittedly like the figure I mentioned sans citation).
For the record, you have to really look hard to find "pro abortion" people. There is a substantial difference between that and pro-choice. I'll assume that's what you meant in the quote above.
Anyway this has wandered way off-topic and I don't think there's anything to gain by arguing further.
You should tell 'em what SLAPP is since they probably don't know: a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Usually designed to hold the public off of a boycotting/voting sort of situation until after the problem can be resolved, or hidden (in environmental terms, "greenwashed"). For example recently a collection of Minnesota timber workers sued environmental lobbying groups that had successfully finagled some legislation, claiming that the groups' environmental philosophy was religious and therefore their legislation violated the separation of Church and State. Now, obviously they weren't going to get away with this ridiculous claim, and in addition, they were sueing the wrong parties. However, "winning" isn't the goal of a SLAPP. The environmental groups (which were small and local) were sufficiently tied down by the legal dilemma that they were momentarily diverted from their anti-logging mission. Ultimately they were defended pro bono, and the press on behalf of the environmentalists made the loggers look so stupid that all the loggers' clout was pretty much ruined. The SLAPP had completely backfired.
I think most SLAPP's backfire, in the end; market forces may preempt the need for anti-SLAPP legislation. I eagerly await Apple's SLAPP in the face by the public.
I fail to see how permitting a woman to have a certain right means giving her the right to lord over men. There's a substantial difference. I don't think you have anything to fear.
I am also socially conservative. I believe that killing babies is wrong. I believe the the Constitutional protections we're afforded shouldn't be violated just because it's politically expedient.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here actually--Roe v. Wade is technically a Constitutional protection--based on interpretation of Constitutional law--until the Supreme Court claims otherwise. Political expedience includes all the measures against the ruling that have come up since, including about three big ones in the 80s before Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy more or less closed the book again in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). In effect, I think you've just disproved your argument.
I think what you meant is that Roe v. Wade isn't a valid decision, which I actually think is true (for all my liberal siding). It's based on something called Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) in which Justice Douglas established the principle of a "Right of Privacy" based on a perceived area between various civil rights from the Bill of Rights. While I like Griswold, it is technically rather a jump from what existed previously; a Constitional privacy amendment would have been a better idea. (Maybe there will finally be one thanks to the Internet controversies.)
As for the thing about more anti-abortionists being male than female, well, I read it somewhere. It's clearly true regarding the halls of power! Of the small number of female leaders in government, it's a tiny percentage of those who are anti-abortion, whereas this isn't quite the case with the men. But I can't find the actual statistic so feel free to disregard it.
Thanks for the only intelligent thing I've read all day! (And I ain't Libertarian.)
You're right that letting others do your thinking is incredibly destructive for society. (It's ironic that I'm responding to your post by saying I agree.)
Don't take this the wrong way, but that effective censorship someone did is just shameful abuse of moderation powers. Ah well. Technocracy is fascism, after all. (And now this isn't off-topic; in fact it's a very direct example of the dangers of social conservatism!)
Me: They're basically trying to put Christianity into schools.
You: Gee, I musta missed that. Being a pagan and all, I don't really pay close attention to what my Christian buddies are up to.
You're voting for 'em. If you're not paying attention to social issues then you should vote Libertarian and not Republican--keeping the gov't out of society. Or maybe you shouldn't be voting at all, which would be fine with me. Republicanism is built on a coalition of conservative economics (which I don't like, but which I can tolerate) and social conservativism (which I don't like and despise). You've clearly expressed yourself as an economic conservative, which I think is fine, but when you rabidly argue on behalf of the GOP you clearly haven't done your homework and you're really just a tool.
Yes, I am a rabid Liberal. At least I have some sense of what I'm voting for!
"You're empowered because you can kill your baby." is just a mask for "I don't want to pay child support, you were just a casual fuck.".
It's really not as clear-cut as that. Rape, incest, mistakes, etc. Incidentally it should be no surprise that most anti-abortion people are male. "Fuck da bitches!"
Well OUR presidential candidate isn't a slum lord. A certain other pary can't say that.
That's why I'm not voting for a "certain other pary". Al Gore may be a slum lord. Did I ever say I was voting for Gore?
Sorry, it don't work that way. You alienated these guys, now they have learned to do things their way, and when these guys decide to become politically active, there is going to be a very intense, very cleansing and very lesson-teaching social conflict in this country.
I think you could solve the whole problem by getting all these people laid.
Easier said than done I suppose. But I've seen hard-core gun-totin' SUV-gas-guzzlin' Republicans become Democrats overnight...
You're a nut. If you're so concerned about the government making your decisions for you, you should avoid Republicanism at all costs. They're basically trying to put Christianity into schools. Is that what passes for freedom of the intellect?...trying to destroy a woman's right to control her own body. Is that what passes for freedom of self-control?...America can steal from the poor, but Republicans try to kill off anyone poor who tries to borrow from the rich. Is that what passes for LOGICAL? SENSIBLE? FAIR? Can Republicanism pass for INTELLIGENT?
(Have I just been suckered by a troll? Is this guy even for real??? What rotten woodwork did he crawl out of????)
I'd love to know how, in the Samba article, the babel fish translated "Roland Lindemann" to "Roland lime tree man".
Superman In Need: Oh, Oh Lime Tree Man, how can I ever repay you? Lime Tree Man: Oh, you don't need to guv. It's all in a days work for... Lime Tree Man! Three Supermen: Our Hero! Voiceover: Yes! whenever lime trees are endangered, or menaced by international communism, Lime Tree Man is ready!
I've actually had the privilege to work in IBM research in Yorktown NY. It's the greatest place to work in the world. All because they have Lego Mindstorm! Certainly the largest collection of geniuses west of MIT and east of Palo Alto. (All geniuses love Legos.)
It's too bad about the edges of the monitors! That's sort of like how parrots see: they ordinarily would have a big black line down the center of their image (in their brains), but instead they close one eye and turn their heads. The world would be a much better place if cathode rays were just allowed to swing freely without borders, irradiating the eyes of all and exciting the phosphors of the world. Ahh, to dream!
Funny?? This is a serious philosophical matter actually. I'm telling ya--read the book. There's a mental tyranny that prevents us from seeing things in truly radical ways. In practical life, the RIAA is part of it.
Hear hear! Mass culture is disgusting. Everyone should go read Adorno & Horkheimer's "Dialectic of Enlightenment." Still a difficult enough philosophical treatise that it *isn't* mass culture--despite the large number of Village Voice types who pretend to have read it in order to sound hip.
A&H contend--among other things--that the mass culture preponderance creates a situation in which even our free time, when we are ostensibly not working, is WORK. Going to the movies, buying N*Sync CDs, all of that is just another form of WORK. Frankly I agree. All mass culture is part of a brutal totality that strips away our freedom to think in certain ways, as does the concept of progress espoused by the Enlightenment circa Kant. Adorno speculates a possible escape from this system, through modern art and music, although frankly I'm doubtful. Hallucinogens are probably a better bet (I wouldn't know actually).
End the mental hegemony of mass culture! Crush the RIAA!! Think!! Escape!!
Every boycott effects the seller. The question is whether it would effect them enough for them to take action or change their policy; the answer, presumably, is maybe.:)
I'd expect some larger non-RIAA labels to come around soon. The RIAA is probably trying to squeeze Napster so it can monopolize the act of distribution itself, to a certain extent (ignoring the greater GNUtella/Freenet issue), and discourage it. But an online label--while marketing might suffer to a certain degree--could digitally distribute its artists' music at negligible cost, and give the artists a greater percentage of the proceeds. This would certainly appeal to Courtney Love, apparently. Obviously the piracy problem is still there, but the windows for this sort of thing are opening much wider in my opinion. The RIAA and its members will die.
Lousy A&M, good thing I already downloaded all the Herb Alpert songs I can stand!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am an academic snob. I like to sound as much as possible like Mr. Burns in whatever I write. My home page is entirely about trying to prolong academia into the post-collegiate milieu.
:)
...Uh, I'm fired, aren't I?
Like how I tucked "milieu" into there?
"Uh, excuse me, but... 'proactive'? 'Paradigm'? Aren't these just words dumb people use to sound important?
Nicely put. I do have a problem with seeing advertisements everywhere. I don't have a problem with using human cadavers for research.
:)
Oh, were you being sarcastic?
The campus became a regular campsite for companies trying to hawk their products. For example,
- Glamour Magazine was allowed to set up a tent on the illustrious Lawn, hawking products, trying to enlist subscribers, scouting for models, selling poor self-image.
- Football fields and buildings, and renovations (and benches and tables and lightswitches) were named in honor of donors, as usual, but the donors were moving in corporate directions. The main building of our Darden School of Business is called the Pepsi Forum (it's should be no surprise that you can't get Coke in there).
- I first spotted the Reebok logo appearing on our football players in my third or fourth year, although it had probably been there all along; perhaps they increased the size.
(I'm sure there are more examples I've forgotten.)I don't think Katz adequately addressed the issue of why corporate sponsorship is a problem. In my opinion, such contributions are like the system of patronage that strangled the painting world for many years (and continues to, I believe). You can't really bite the hand that feeds you and then expect another bite. I think it is safe to assume that research at UVA is not going to suddenly announce that caffeine and sugar combine to form toxins that eat your brain... Such systems dilute the value of the research, and also direct it away from "pure research" (as opposed to profit-research) which tends to lead the way in advances that actually help society.
(Incidentally, UVA hosts one of the two crash test research centers that use actual human cadavers in the car; the other is the University of Heidelberg... "Hey, those aren't dummies!")
As long as we're on the subject of Gnutella abuses, can anyone explain to me the weird Usenet addresses I'm getting when I do GNUtella searches these days? Things like:
e aky/things/done/with/dishware/17852: How to turn a plate into a vibrator - pladiddilio@asjkgfasg.com
...only I get about 60 of 'em for any search. Is this some kind of strange ad? Or what? I had the feeling these filenames might actually be randomly generated just to take up space and slow down the Gnutella net, or something. But overall I don't see any point in it.
www.usenet-replayer.com/short-archive/part/alt/fr
Keep in mind that no online company using advertising as its profit model has made any money.
Choices other than abortion? Such as giving birth? If there is another third option I would like to hear about it. It might help the women who will die if they give birth--and I happen to know one, so I don't want to hear any shit.
There are retroactive alternatives--i.e. using birth control beforehand--but they won't do a pregnant woman much good.
If you want to talk about orphanages, well, those were proven to cause low IQs way back in the 1940s or thereabouts by child development psychologists. Adoption by foster parents, meanwhile, is an acceptable alternative. I haven't heard about any attempt to suppress information about either one, in any case. Every pro-choice person I have met is in favor of adoption measures and so forth whenever abortion can be avoided. You make abortion out to be like a trip to an amusement park; these things are not easy decisions or actions and they tend to tear a girl's life apart. *Nobody* thinks abortions are substitutes for birth control. Accidents happen, though.
What I really don't understand is how you can justify your gas-guzzling environment-destroying SUV and then claim you want to protect unborn children. It reeks of odious hypocrisy. Why have children if they're going to enter an unliveable world?
But I don't want to get started. There's no concluding this argument and I'm wasting my time.
This notion that "all women are pro abortion" is a blatent lie.
Only an idiot would say otherwise. I certainly said nothing of the kind. But I know the statistic is out there (somewhere) that more men are anti-abortion than women; if I didn't have a job, I'd put some effort into finding it. Unfortunately if you do a search for anything related to abortion you don't get facts but rhetoric (admittedly like the figure I mentioned sans citation).
For the record, you have to really look hard to find "pro abortion" people. There is a substantial difference between that and pro-choice. I'll assume that's what you meant in the quote above.
Anyway this has wandered way off-topic and I don't think there's anything to gain by arguing further.
You should tell 'em what SLAPP is since they probably don't know: a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Usually designed to hold the public off of a boycotting/voting sort of situation until after the problem can be resolved, or hidden (in environmental terms, "greenwashed"). For example recently a collection of Minnesota timber workers sued environmental lobbying groups that had successfully finagled some legislation, claiming that the groups' environmental philosophy was religious and therefore their legislation violated the separation of Church and State. Now, obviously they weren't going to get away with this ridiculous claim, and in addition, they were sueing the wrong parties. However, "winning" isn't the goal of a SLAPP. The environmental groups (which were small and local) were sufficiently tied down by the legal dilemma that they were momentarily diverted from their anti-logging mission. Ultimately they were defended pro bono, and the press on behalf of the environmentalists made the loggers look so stupid that all the loggers' clout was pretty much ruined. The SLAPP had completely backfired.
I think most SLAPP's backfire, in the end; market forces may preempt the need for anti-SLAPP legislation. I eagerly await Apple's SLAPP in the face by the public.
Hope that helps.
I fail to see how permitting a woman to have a certain right means giving her the right to lord over men. There's a substantial difference. I don't think you have anything to fear.
I am also socially conservative. I believe that killing babies is wrong. I believe the the Constitutional protections we're afforded shouldn't be violated just because it's politically expedient.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here actually--Roe v. Wade is technically a Constitutional protection--based on interpretation of Constitutional law--until the Supreme Court claims otherwise. Political expedience includes all the measures against the ruling that have come up since, including about three big ones in the 80s before Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy more or less closed the book again in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). In effect, I think you've just disproved your argument.
I think what you meant is that Roe v. Wade isn't a valid decision, which I actually think is true (for all my liberal siding). It's based on something called Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) in which Justice Douglas established the principle of a "Right of Privacy" based on a perceived area between various civil rights from the Bill of Rights. While I like Griswold, it is technically rather a jump from what existed previously; a Constitional privacy amendment would have been a better idea. (Maybe there will finally be one thanks to the Internet controversies.)
As for the thing about more anti-abortionists being male than female, well, I read it somewhere. It's clearly true regarding the halls of power! Of the small number of female leaders in government, it's a tiny percentage of those who are anti-abortion, whereas this isn't quite the case with the men. But I can't find the actual statistic so feel free to disregard it.
Thanks for the only intelligent thing I've read all day! (And I ain't Libertarian.)
You're right that letting others do your thinking is incredibly destructive for society. (It's ironic that I'm responding to your post by saying I agree.)
Nader in 2000! [So long, +1 rating!]
Don't take this the wrong way, but that effective censorship someone did is just shameful abuse of moderation powers. Ah well. Technocracy is fascism, after all. (And now this isn't off-topic; in fact it's a very direct example of the dangers of social conservatism!)
Me: They're basically trying to put Christianity into schools.
You: Gee, I musta missed that. Being a pagan and all, I don't really pay close attention to what my Christian buddies are up to.
You're voting for 'em. If you're not paying attention to social issues then you should vote Libertarian and not Republican--keeping the gov't out of society. Or maybe you shouldn't be voting at all, which would be fine with me. Republicanism is built on a coalition of conservative economics (which I don't like, but which I can tolerate) and social conservativism (which I don't like and despise). You've clearly expressed yourself as an economic conservative, which I think is fine, but when you rabidly argue on behalf of the GOP you clearly haven't done your homework and you're really just a tool.
Yes, I am a rabid Liberal. At least I have some sense of what I'm voting for!
"You're empowered because you can kill your baby." is just a mask for "I don't want to pay child support, you were just a casual fuck.".
It's really not as clear-cut as that. Rape, incest, mistakes, etc. Incidentally it should be no surprise that most anti-abortion people are male. "Fuck da bitches!"
Well OUR presidential candidate isn't a slum lord. A certain other pary can't say that.
That's why I'm not voting for a "certain other pary". Al Gore may be a slum lord. Did I ever say I was voting for Gore?
Go do your homework.
Sorry, it don't work that way. You alienated these guys, now they have learned to do things their way, and when these guys decide to become politically active, there is going to be a very intense, very cleansing and very lesson-teaching social conflict in this country.
I think you could solve the whole problem by getting all these people laid.
Easier said than done I suppose. But I've seen hard-core gun-totin' SUV-gas-guzzlin' Republicans become Democrats overnight...
Well I mean, I didn't actually *see* it...
You're a nut. If you're so concerned about the government making your decisions for you, you should avoid Republicanism at all costs. They're basically trying to put Christianity into schools. Is that what passes for freedom of the intellect? ...trying to destroy a woman's right to control her own body. Is that what passes for freedom of self-control? ...America can steal from the poor, but Republicans try to kill off anyone poor who tries to borrow from the rich. Is that what passes for LOGICAL? SENSIBLE? FAIR? Can Republicanism pass for INTELLIGENT?
(Have I just been suckered by a troll? Is this guy even for real??? What rotten woodwork did he crawl out of????)
I'd love to know how, in the Samba article, the babel fish translated "Roland Lindemann" to "Roland lime tree man".
Superman In Need: Oh, Oh Lime Tree Man, how can I ever repay you?
Lime Tree Man: Oh, you don't need to guv. It's all in a days work for... Lime Tree Man!
Three Supermen: Our Hero!
Voiceover: Yes! whenever lime trees are endangered, or menaced by international communism, Lime Tree Man is ready!
I've actually had the privilege to work in IBM research in Yorktown NY. It's the greatest place to work in the world. All because they have Lego Mindstorm! Certainly the largest collection of geniuses west of MIT and east of Palo Alto. (All geniuses love Legos.)
It's too bad about the edges of the monitors! That's sort of like how parrots see: they ordinarily would have a big black line down the center of their image (in their brains), but instead they close one eye and turn their heads.
The world would be a much better place if cathode rays were just allowed to swing freely without borders, irradiating the eyes of all and exciting the phosphors of the world. Ahh, to dream!
Funny?? This is a serious philosophical matter actually. I'm telling ya--read the book. There's a mental tyranny that prevents us from seeing things in truly radical ways. In practical life, the RIAA is part of it.
I just wanted someone to think I was insightful! *sniff*
Actually I think I will let my kids view all the porn they want. Censorship just gives kids complexes about sex. Ain't nothin' wrong with sex, damnit.
Now that's insightful!
When I have kids, I''ll let them view all the porn they want.
- elimating the Vitamin 98 Spice Britney Sync Aguilera culture
- the bands themselves would be sentenced to skid row, and
- it would promote sustainable development through negative population growth, helping our planet live for another few decades.
It really sounds like a good idea, frankly. I hope Carnivore ain't runnin' on Slashdot yet!!Hear hear! Mass culture is disgusting. Everyone should go read Adorno & Horkheimer's "Dialectic of Enlightenment." Still a difficult enough philosophical treatise that it *isn't* mass culture--despite the large number of Village Voice types who pretend to have read it in order to sound hip.
A&H contend--among other things--that the mass culture preponderance creates a situation in which even our free time, when we are ostensibly not working, is WORK. Going to the movies, buying N*Sync CDs, all of that is just another form of WORK. Frankly I agree. All mass culture is part of a brutal totality that strips away our freedom to think in certain ways, as does the concept of progress espoused by the Enlightenment circa Kant. Adorno speculates a possible escape from this system, through modern art and music, although frankly I'm doubtful. Hallucinogens are probably a better bet (I wouldn't know actually).
End the mental hegemony of mass culture! Crush the RIAA!! Think!! Escape!!
Every boycott effects the seller. The question is whether it would effect them enough for them to take action or change their policy; the answer, presumably, is maybe. :)
I'd expect some larger non-RIAA labels to come around soon. The RIAA is probably trying to squeeze Napster so it can monopolize the act of distribution itself, to a certain extent (ignoring the greater GNUtella/Freenet issue), and discourage it. But an online label--while marketing might suffer to a certain degree--could digitally distribute its artists' music at negligible cost, and give the artists a greater percentage of the proceeds. This would certainly appeal to Courtney Love, apparently. Obviously the piracy problem is still there, but the windows for this sort of thing are opening much wider in my opinion. The RIAA and its members will die.
Lousy A&M, good thing I already downloaded all the Herb Alpert songs I can stand!