Forgot to mention: he's a stand-up guy. When he did his One-Man LotR in Victoria during the local Fringe Festival, he added a couple of shows due to the demand and then donated half of the gross (that's gross, not net) of every one of his performances during the festival to AIDS Vancouver Island.
His One-Man LotR is brilliant. He performs all three movies in an hour, and by the end of it he's exhausted and dripping wet.
He's a local boy, too, having graduated from the University of Victoria. Frankly, a local boy getting big-time acting attention in the outside world is more newswothy, IMHO, than the fact that he's playing Chicago. He played Vancouver four times the other month. Why wasn't that a front-page headline?
It's not relevant because the story is not making a judgment on the veracity of the affidavit. It is stating that one exists, which is newsworthy in and of itself.
If you claim under oath that you saw Superman fly above the Vatican and used his X-Ray visision to see the Pope eating babies -- and you had a verifiable connection to Superman, the Pope, or the babies -- then, yes, it would be news, regardless of whether or not the facts of the testimony were verified.
And, again, the reporters tried at least twice to get a comment from the Feeney camp.
No matter how you slice it, this was responsible journalism.
Good for you. Now say that in a sworn affidavit and have verifiable links to the people and organizations that you claim to have been in contact with and it might be news.
Claiming that you rigged an election is not news.
Working for a candidate and then claiming in sworn testimony that you did some work which may be linked to rigged elections: that's news.
Whether the documents were forged or not, their existence is news. CBS' problem was that they assumed that those documents had some kind of veracity. This story does not ascribe any such value to the affidavit.
As a follow-up, I'm pretty sure that you didn't actually read the article; it makes no judgments on the truth or falsity of the allegations and it makes specific mention of their multiple attempts to get feedback from Feeney's office.
Simply reporting that allegations exist and specifying that some of these allegations are in an affidavidit is responsible journalism. That there are allegations is a point of fact. When a tornado hits a trailer park, journalists are not required to look for a second opinion or go into background as to why that trailer park seems to attract tornadoes.
Whether or not www.therawstory.com is a biased publication is irrelevant, since the PDF containing the affidavit is not a biased source in and of itself.
I'll go and download the latest episode of CSI in about 15 minutes
I occasionally read abut someone getting through the download of a 42-minute long episode that quickly. I can't figure out how they do it.
I have fast cable. If I open up a hundred connections and download from a tracker with hundreds of seeds I still rarely get more than 100 kbps down; even with occasional bursts of 220 kbps it takes 40-45 minutes to download a show.
I'd love to know how people are getting so much better speeds than I am.
Anyway: this is another case where, as with music, the content producers are going to have to adapt to the new market.
And for you anti-download folks: I just dropped $114.99 Cdn on the deluxe edition Seinfeld seasons 1-3 on Tuesday. My downloading isn't affecting my spending. Hardline tactics from content owners will affect my spending.
At least we have the guts to post in ways that can identify us, sockpuppet.
And congratulations comparing a legitimate infringement of a perceived right to your car getting broken into. You win the 2004 Golden False Analogy Award.
Yes, it is a legitimate use. There's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, so don't bother trying.
I don't own the game, but if I had, I would not have agreed to any contract upon purchase of the box. If I don't want to have to put the CD in the drive every time I want to play the game, I shouldn't have to. Period. Don't like it? Tough.
I support any efforts made to circumvent this and other forms of intrusive copy protection.
Classic argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Popularity and quality seldom meet.
If (say) CSI had been given Firefly's slot and shuffled around as much as Firefly was and pre-empted by sports as often as Firefly was, it would have been canceled, too.
Slashdot Mirror
You are begining to try my patience. You have been tried and found wanting.
It's a perfectly common use of the word and used transitively. In Oxford Concise, it is the fourth verb definition listed (of ten definitions).
His use of the word was by no means unclear or incorrect.
- Jim, professional editor
I've read every post up to and includign yours, and I've seen none that advocate sharing infringing material.
Knee, met jerk.
Dafanately.
Yes, he should spend the rest of his life in jail for being a violent repeat offender. Absolutely.
And it'd be nice if you'd get the fuck out of my Western society, too.
They aren't underlinked and highlighted. It's a link. You are making the choice to use a browser set to underline and highlight links.
If you are offended, it's your fault for choosing how links are displayed.
Forgot to mention: he's a stand-up guy. When he did his One-Man LotR in Victoria during the local Fringe Festival, he added a couple of shows due to the demand and then donated half of the gross (that's gross, not net) of every one of his performances during the festival to AIDS Vancouver Island.
Really, really cool.
His One-Man LotR is brilliant. He performs all three movies in an hour, and by the end of it he's exhausted and dripping wet.
He's a local boy, too, having graduated from the University of Victoria. Frankly, a local boy getting big-time acting attention in the outside world is more newswothy, IMHO, than the fact that he's playing Chicago. He played Vancouver four times the other month. Why wasn't that a front-page headline?
It's not relevant because the story is not making a judgment on the veracity of the affidavit. It is stating that one exists, which is newsworthy in and of itself.
I sometimes forget that this is Slashdot, where people will comment without RTFA. Psst. Guess what? They did attempt to verify the claims.
Affidavit. Under oath.
If you claim under oath that you saw Superman fly above the Vatican and used his X-Ray visision to see the Pope eating babies -- and you had a verifiable connection to Superman, the Pope, or the babies -- then, yes, it would be news, regardless of whether or not the facts of the testimony were verified.
And, again, the reporters tried at least twice to get a comment from the Feeney camp.
No matter how you slice it, this was responsible journalism.
Fully. It's probably baloney. But the validity of the affidavit is not relevant to this particular story.
I agree. But reporting that it was said under oath *is* journalism.
Good for you. Now say that in a sworn affidavit and have verifiable links to the people and organizations that you claim to have been in contact with and it might be news.
Claiming that you rigged an election is not news.
Working for a candidate and then claiming in sworn testimony that you did some work which may be linked to rigged elections: that's news.
Whether the documents were forged or not, their existence is news. CBS' problem was that they assumed that those documents had some kind of veracity. This story does not ascribe any such value to the affidavit.
As a follow-up, I'm pretty sure that you didn't actually read the article; it makes no judgments on the truth or falsity of the allegations and it makes specific mention of their multiple attempts to get feedback from Feeney's office.
They're not required to validate the allegations.
Simply reporting that allegations exist and specifying that some of these allegations are in an affidavidit is responsible journalism. That there are allegations is a point of fact. When a tornado hits a trailer park, journalists are not required to look for a second opinion or go into background as to why that trailer park seems to attract tornadoes.
Whether or not www.therawstory.com is a biased publication is irrelevant, since the PDF containing the affidavit is not a biased source in and of itself.
I'll go and download the latest episode of CSI in about 15 minutes
I occasionally read abut someone getting through the download of a 42-minute long episode that quickly. I can't figure out how they do it.
I have fast cable. If I open up a hundred connections and download from a tracker with hundreds of seeds I still rarely get more than 100 kbps down; even with occasional bursts of 220 kbps it takes 40-45 minutes to download a show.
I'd love to know how people are getting so much better speeds than I am.
Anyway: this is another case where, as with music, the content producers are going to have to adapt to the new market.
And for you anti-download folks: I just dropped $114.99 Cdn on the deluxe edition Seinfeld seasons 1-3 on Tuesday. My downloading isn't affecting my spending. Hardline tactics from content owners will affect my spending.
I'm not American. The DMCA doesn't apply to me. And I don't acknowledge the EULAs as valid. Many jurisdictions agree with me.
"Legitimate" doesn't necessarily mean "legal", anyway. History has shown that it is always legitimate to ignore bad laws.
At least we have the guts to post in ways that can identify us, sockpuppet.
And congratulations comparing a legitimate infringement of a perceived right to your car getting broken into. You win the 2004 Golden False Analogy Award.
Yes, it is a legitimate use. There's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, so don't bother trying.
I don't own the game, but if I had, I would not have agreed to any contract upon purchase of the box. If I don't want to have to put the CD in the drive every time I want to play the game, I shouldn't have to. Period. Don't like it? Tough.
I support any efforts made to circumvent this and other forms of intrusive copy protection.
Doesn't matter how many are in each camp. There is a legitimate use, and that legitimate use should be protected.
The new Galactica has been unexpectedly good. Arc-based story elements, three-dimensional characters, secrets, lies and explodo.
Classic argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Popularity and quality seldom meet.
If (say) CSI had been given Firefly's slot and shuffled around as much as Firefly was and pre-empted by sports as often as Firefly was, it would have been canceled, too.
No problem. Buy your printer with cash. They'll trace it back to where it was purchased, with no record of who purchased it.
Cameras in the store? Don't shop there, then. Buy from some little hole-in-the-wall.
Until they outlaw using cash, of course.