Instead of having 5,000,000 individual "sites" (blogs) commenting on the same subject-of-the-day and expecting people to come to them, they should be sharing their comments (unless they're so utterly different and unique and special or whatever) in community forums like Slashdot. Can you imagine if, rather than reading a page under an article on slashdot to get everyone's thoughts on it - you had to visit each of the poster's websites, look for today's date and then read their thoughts on it? You have a very narrow view of blogs. There are plenty of blogs out there that have active communities. Here's one:
At the time of this posting, there are 130 comments on the most recent blog entry. The only thing that's missing is threading, but the technology exists for that:
See, for many people blogs aren't just about throwing their comments into the web and hoping that somebody likes them -- it's about actually creating an environment for discussion of thoughts that are pressing to them, rather than letting others dictate the terms of the discussion.
For some people, that just means asking their families to read their blogs, and for others it's an attempt to create an actual "community". Either way, the potential for real meaningful interaction certainly does exist in blogs. What TBL is talking about is filtering through the large number of amateur, careless, incomplete and otherwise failed blogs to locate those that have that potential.
Well, that is what it says in TFA. Or are you denying that?
That it applies specifically to copyrighted material where the copyright holder has not granted download privileges is a no-brainer and I'm surprised that anybody would actually assume the Swedish government hadn't included that in the law.
You may no longer post on Slashdot. As you will note in TFA, it is a law that applies only to music, games and videos.
As we have a blanket opposition to posting "unfounded" material (and not just "founded material which does derive from a downloading of the available article"), you may not post on Slashdot again.
If you'd read the first sentence of TFA, you would know that "Sweden has outlawed the downloading of copyrighted [b]movies, games and music[/b] in an attempt to curb rampant piracy."
So the law doesn't apply to "everything", and it's not a huge stretch of common sense to assume that this applies specifically to non-licensed downloads of movies, games, and music.
Sorry, I should clarify. When I said it might be questionable behavior, I did not mean to imply that the world should be viewed in black and white terms.
Rather, I meant that it would be problematic if a justice were *inconsistent* in her decisions -- making decisions that seem to defy or contradict earlier cases.
Furthermore, in the recent elections, a "swing voter" was somebody who could be swayed in either direction. These voters were considered somewhat susceptible to political manipulation down to the last moment. I'm not saying this is the case, but it would be a shame if that were true of our SC justices as well.
I'm going to show my lack of knowledge concerning the SCOTUS here, in the hopes of learning something new.
How is it determined which of the justices is the "swing vote"? Presumably, the swing vote is a concern in decisions that are split 5-4. But if there are 5 justices voting in a particular direction, how is it known which of those justices was undecided? (And, in fact, shouldn't they ALL be undecided until they've considered the merits of the particular case?)
Do the justices reveal their deliberation process? Or are particular judges just considered "swing votes" because they aren't consistent in the leaning of their decisions? (Which would also strike me as somewhat questionable behavior from a SC justice.)
Actually, somebody at LinuxFund made a rounding error. Tomorrow we'll learn that the entire building has burned down (except for a red stapler that miraculously survives), and that weird mumbling guy in Corporate Accounts has gone missing.
If you buy a computer from Dell, they send you a DHL shipping label for recycling your old computer. It's free for the customer and you can just use the box that your new machine came in. It would be great if more companies could offer this kind of service.
Re:Writing off business expenses as charity.
on
Photoshop for DNA
·
· Score: 1
Remember those "computer for classroooms" "charity" writeoffs?
If the average Joe tried to "give" money to an organization that turned around and gave it back to him and then he wrote it off as charity, then he'd be in a federal "pound them in the ass" prison.
Yeah! And he gives millions of dollars to AIDS work so that the recipients will just turn around and give AIDS back to him! If the average Joe did that...
Hmm... I guess that logic can only be carried so far...;)
Re:$42.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda
on
Photoshop for DNA
·
· Score: 1
You're missing the point. A dollar to AIDS research is a dollar to AIDS research, *whatever* the reasons for donating. There is nothing to be gained by criticizing the wealthiest donors.
In the "real world", which you so kindly reminded me of, there is also such a concept as "pragmatism".
Re:$42.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda
on
Photoshop for DNA
·
· Score: 1
Also, does the good they do outweigh the harm they do to society? Doubtful. It's equally doubtful for most super-rich men. I think it's a way to ease their conscience about all the horrible things they've done.
I'd be interested to hear how you think Microsoft's antitrust violations are more significant than the hundreds of millions of dollars the B&M Gates foundation donates to AIDS research, education, health initiatives, and technology.
I mean, I'm sure you hate Bill with a passion, but the causes that he donates to are FAR more important than some piddling software rivalries.
Also, it concerns me when people who donate are accused of "just easing their conscience". We should be grateful for every dollar donated to these causes. Attributing generosity to ulterior motives simply adds another barrier to future donations. We should encourage philanthropy, not punish it with unsubstantiated accusations of emotional instability.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of having 5,000,000 individual "sites" (blogs) commenting on the same subject-of-the-day and expecting people to come to them, they should be sharing their comments (unless they're so utterly different and unique and special or whatever) in community forums like Slashdot. Can you imagine if, rather than reading a page under an article on slashdot to get everyone's thoughts on it - you had to visit each of the poster's websites, look for today's date and then read their thoughts on it?
e =UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-32,GGLG:en&q=blog+thread ed+comments
You have a very narrow view of blogs. There are plenty of blogs out there that have active communities. Here's one:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
At the time of this posting, there are 130 comments on the most recent blog entry. The only thing that's missing is threading, but the technology exists for that:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&i
See, for many people blogs aren't just about throwing their comments into the web and hoping that somebody likes them -- it's about actually creating an environment for discussion of thoughts that are pressing to them, rather than letting others dictate the terms of the discussion.
For some people, that just means asking their families to read their blogs, and for others it's an attempt to create an actual "community". Either way, the potential for real meaningful interaction certainly does exist in blogs. What TBL is talking about is filtering through the large number of amateur, careless, incomplete and otherwise failed blogs to locate those that have that potential.
This is humanity which is communicating over the web
Not exactly the most reassuring thing I've read all week... but it's only Tuesday, so maybe there's still hope.
No.
Well, that is what it says in TFA. Or are you denying that?
That it applies specifically to copyrighted material where the copyright holder has not granted download privileges is a no-brainer and I'm surprised that anybody would actually assume the Swedish government hadn't included that in the law.
Of course not -- that would be cheating the developers of tuxracer of valuable revenues!
ATTENTION: Anonymous Coward.
You may no longer post on Slashdot. As you will note in TFA, it is a law that applies only to music, games and videos.
As we have a blanket opposition to posting "unfounded" material (and not just "founded material which does derive from a downloading of the available article"), you may not post on Slashdot again.
Yes, now I can't download games, music or videos that I never purchased! LIFE IS SO UNFAIR! KILL ME NOW!!!
Oops. Please pretend that those were < and >. Thanks.
If you'd read the first sentence of TFA, you would know that "Sweden has outlawed the downloading of copyrighted [b]movies, games and music[/b] in an attempt to curb rampant piracy."
So the law doesn't apply to "everything", and it's not a huge stretch of common sense to assume that this applies specifically to non-licensed downloads of movies, games, and music.
Duh.
Sorry, I should clarify. When I said it might be questionable behavior, I did not mean to imply that the world should be viewed in black and white terms.
Rather, I meant that it would be problematic if a justice were *inconsistent* in her decisions -- making decisions that seem to defy or contradict earlier cases.
Furthermore, in the recent elections, a "swing voter" was somebody who could be swayed in either direction. These voters were considered somewhat susceptible to political manipulation down to the last moment. I'm not saying this is the case, but it would be a shame if that were true of our SC justices as well.
I'm going to show my lack of knowledge concerning the SCOTUS here, in the hopes of learning something new.
How is it determined which of the justices is the "swing vote"? Presumably, the swing vote is a concern in decisions that are split 5-4. But if there are 5 justices voting in a particular direction, how is it known which of those justices was undecided? (And, in fact, shouldn't they ALL be undecided until they've considered the merits of the particular case?)
Do the justices reveal their deliberation process? Or are particular judges just considered "swing votes" because they aren't consistent in the leaning of their decisions? (Which would also strike me as somewhat questionable behavior from a SC justice.)
Please enlighten me!
Surely this must be code for something else...
Perhaps, but do you really want people to know about your "Richard Simmons -- Disco Sweat" DVD?
Trying to port Linux to various portable devices is hot nowadays.
So hot. You should see the look on my girlfriend's face when I tell her, "Time to compile the kernel on this bad boy."
Gets 'em every time, baby.
Start being an *informed* consumer, markets work better that way.
And yet the market booms when consumers don't have a clue what's going on (witness the dotcom bubble).
Oops, I meant, less than nothing. Please let me know if you find a way to pay less than nothing for it.
Please let me know if you find a way to pay less than a dollar for it.
Come on, nobody would fall for that!
Try misspelling a few words, that should do the trick.
Actually, somebody at LinuxFund made a rounding error. Tomorrow we'll learn that the entire building has burned down (except for a red stapler that miraculously survives), and that weird mumbling guy in Corporate Accounts has gone missing.
I hear Bill Gates needs some assistance with his open source initiatives.
If you buy a computer from Dell, they send you a DHL shipping label for recycling your old computer. It's free for the customer and you can just use the box that your new machine came in. It would be great if more companies could offer this kind of service.
Remember those "computer for classroooms" "charity" writeoffs?
;)
If the average Joe tried to "give" money to an organization that turned around and gave it back to him and then he wrote it off as charity, then he'd be in a federal "pound them in the ass" prison.
Yeah! And he gives millions of dollars to AIDS work so that the recipients will just turn around and give AIDS back to him! If the average Joe did that...
Hmm... I guess that logic can only be carried so far...
You're missing the point. A dollar to AIDS research is a dollar to AIDS research, *whatever* the reasons for donating. There is nothing to be gained by criticizing the wealthiest donors.
In the "real world", which you so kindly reminded me of, there is also such a concept as "pragmatism".
Also, does the good they do outweigh the harm they do to society? Doubtful. It's equally doubtful for most super-rich men. I think it's a way to ease their conscience about all the horrible things they've done.
I'd be interested to hear how you think Microsoft's antitrust violations are more significant than the hundreds of millions of dollars the B&M Gates foundation donates to AIDS research, education, health initiatives, and technology.
I mean, I'm sure you hate Bill with a passion, but the causes that he donates to are FAR more important than some piddling software rivalries.
Also, it concerns me when people who donate are accused of "just easing their conscience". We should be grateful for every dollar donated to these causes. Attributing generosity to ulterior motives simply adds another barrier to future donations. We should encourage philanthropy, not punish it with unsubstantiated accusations of emotional instability.
I'm so glad somebody implemented this. It was simply getting waaaay too cumbersome to carry around my cell phone and my credit card at the same time!
Clear sound doesn't sell cell phones. Features do. That and geek-chic appeal.
0 050531 0 050601
These recent comics pretty much sum it up:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/zits.asp?date=2
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/zits.asp?date=2
It's not that sound quality isn't important -- it's just that most people don't even *think* of it when they're comparing phones!
Does it look cool? Check. Bluetooth? Check. Games? Check. Web access? Check. SMS? Check.
I'll take it!
Last I checked, you need a razor to put the blades onto.
Just a thought.