It has never been the case that whistleblowers have a "right" to be anonymous. This has been a commonly followed convention, because it serves the public good.
My choice of the word whistleblower was a poor choice as there are laws dealing with curcumstances that are called whistleblower laws. My choice of vocabulary might have lead to a misunderstanding.
What I was trying to say is people with information that could be regarded as important, yet incriminating, will end up thinking twice before going to a journalist with their story if that journalist does not have this license because they will not be protected as a source.
nondisclosure of sources is not freedom of expression, so the determination of who is covered and who is not is therefore not a first amendment issue.
Your right, it is not a first amendment issue, yet it is interwoven with the concept, leading me to my next point.
Who has freedom of speech IS clearly defined: insofar as the government is explicitly prohibited from abridging free speech.
Yes, and this freedom is protected by the freedom of the press. It is the press that reports on these violations to make them known to the populace at hand. If someones first amendment rights have been violated, and it is not reported, there is no leverage the plebs can use as influence in the court. Sure, you can still hire a lawyer and file a case, but an entity that has the power to truly quash your first amendment rights probably has the resources to drag the case out, and win with deeper pockets. If this same entity does not have to worry about its public image, due to no reporting, I am willing to venture they won't care.
This could also be used to attack those who do exercise their free speech. Let's say a person begins to speak out against entity X, where X is very influencial and deep pocketed. This person (citizen A) begins to reveal information that is factual about entity X's behavior. Reporter B, who is a licensed reporter, doesn't like what citizen A is saying. In an attempt to discredit him, reporter B begins making up horrible things that have occured in citizen A's past that can only be corroborated by "his source", which does not exist. If Reporter B is licensed, he is protected from having to reveal his source, which works out just fine because the source doesn't exist. Reporter B can now do this with impunity because he does not need to worry about jailtime. There is no punishment other than the possibility of being fired, which won't happen. If you think reporters don't make up stuff, look up Stephen Glass. Citizen A's following loss of credibility has now subverted his freedom of speech. Yes Citizen A was still able to talk, but now no one will listen. I do understand that the freedom of speech is not the right to an audience, but if it can be so easily undermined - it is a useless freedom. A freedom that is only given so the masses can believe they are free.
Once again I will state that this scenario has one foot firmly entrenched in tinfoil hat land. I will also agree that technically your point is correct, freedom of speech is not legally being affected here. My argument is it's social and political value can be seriously devalued and nullified by the possible misuse of this legislation.
If we agree on anything, it's that journalists being able to have anonymous sources helps society. But where we differ appears to be that you consider that a right that is granted by the first amendment, and I think it is no such right, but should be a privilege as granted by some criteria established by law.
I actually think we may agree on more than that, the one thing I do not agree with is defining who is and who isn't allowed to protect their sources. By creating a definition that is maintained by government we would be laying the groundwork for the government controlling the news. Is this directly preventing free speech, no it isn't in the legal sense, but I firmly believe that it is crippling to the social aspects of free speech that are supported by a free press, not a regulated press.
With licensure comes a defined criteria one must meet to be licensed. By its very definition, some people will fall outside that definition. Those people will not be protected. This is a possible first step to quashing free speech.
If it is clearly defined that you are not protected by the shield law, it is safe to assume that you could be arrested for distributing information without a license if you attempt to protect your source. If this is the case, how long until politicians change the definitions and requirements for licensure to begin omitting parties that they would like to silence? Or begin altering the definition of source?
Confidential sources is not even close to meeting this definition, not the least of which is that the journalist is not on trial for anything.
Yet, the journalist still becomes imprisioned, how nice. Your statements are true in that as it stands, all citizens can be arrested for not divulging sources requested by a subpoena. It is this very lack of definition that allows all of us to speak about unsavory events. Now if you change that dynamic by defining two distinct groups, one that is afforded that protection and one that is not, you create an "information class". This information class will be smaller than the existing "journalist" population, that you can be sure of. This in turn will limit the outlets that whistleblowers can go to.
How long till this legislature is used to define OpEd's based on some criteria? It in and of itself is not threatening free speech itself, but it is the key to opening that door.
In this land of spin and partisanship - I would dare to say that anyone who used superlatives is not a journalist. Because their use infers opinion and a perspective. And there is no such thing as a objective perspective.
The one case where this may not hold true is where numbers involved in the story are in fact the greatest or smallest recorded value of their respective measurement. I hope that made sense.
Let's say they do nail down a definition for Journalist that everyone can kinda agree on. And when I say that, I say it very skeptically because no one is going to agree on that. So a trite and vague definition will be used.
After this happens, you have to prove that you are allowed this "sheild" by registering as a journalist or obtaining a license. This WILL happen if for no other reason than to be able to collect revenue off of the process.
Now the politicians have a way to define who can and cannot inform the people on their behavior without being subject to jail time. I understand this is the underlying point of the discussion, but the central focus is being put on bloggers to screen the real problem.
Take it one step further into tinfoil hat land, and the government will be able to use this to not only classify who can and cannot use free speech freely, but who is allowed to report on whether or not that speech was really necessary. The implications get pretty nasty after that.
I am the one who was told to "Fuck Off." Now read my post again, when did I tell him what he could buy? When did I say he shouldn't buy it for his kid? When did I state that I support legislation like this? I didn't, that's because I don't. In fact, I'm one of the people who actually does something about it and volunteers my skills in helping oppose it.
You say I questioned his actions? I asked if he knew what was in the game. I was attempting to inform HIM! Not make a judgement call, not raise his kid for him, not instill my values. Inform. You know why? Because if he bought this game not knowing what the content was (because he was one of the countless adults who thought games are for kids), saw his child playing it, and then became offended - HE WOULD BE THE TYPE OF PERSON TO SUPPORT THIS LAW!
Wow, I must be some sort off asshole for trying to nip the problem in the bud. Trying to solve the problem through open dialog at the source, the parent, and not through needless legislation. You guys amaze me. You scream at the top of your lungs that you don't want legislation like this to become a reality. Yet, when someoen takes the "educate the parents" route, you shoot that down too. I guess we should all be able to do what we want when we want and not let each other know if we don't think thats a good idea. Yeah, that will work.
To address the response I got, look at the post I was originally posting to. It deals with parents not giving a shit about what there kids play, or what media they ingest. I was relating a story illustrating that point. You, and likeminded people, decided to interpret that as me forcing my values and getting on a high horse. How the hell did you get that out of my post?
If you are of the opinion that recreational sex, gang violence, and more instances of the word "fuck" than I could count are ok for a 9 year old, cool. Have at it. And on a case by case basis, it might have been OK for that particular child, yet that wasn't the point of my post at all. In most cases, younger children cannot digest these things with complete comprehension of their context, they haven't even finished developing socially enough to have the tools to do so. Source me a child psychologist that states otherwise and I will reconsider my stance on that.
Generally it is the parent who is ill informed when it comes to the content of a game, not the child. I never got that far in the discussion because he told me to fuck off. Probably because he thought the same ignorant thing you did, that I was trying to raise his child for him instead of informing him. Had he said "I know what the game is about", it would have ended there. Cool, sorry to have bothered you. That's not what happened. He told me to fuck off. Now, if you think thats a good example of social behavior to exhibit in front of your 9 year old, fine. Just don't expect me to support it.
Quote me where I told that guy how to raise his kid, or what he should or shouldn't buy for him. Hell, tell me where I stated I support this law too.
I in no way was trying to tell him how to raise his child. I was doing what I thought was right and letting him know that the material is generally considered too mature for younger kids. I was actually making sure HE was informed. He may not have been, he could have been one of those people who still thinks games are for kids. Then he would have become one of the people SUPPORTING this type of legislation.
Buy whatever you want for your kids, you have to pay for the consequences. I don't want to try and actually STOP you, but I'm never going to hold my tongue when it comes to passing information.
Now tell me, when did I try to tell him what he should buy for his kid? I didn't.
When did I say that violent video games caused minors to commit crimes? I didn't outright, but it is the/. mindset to take cynicism and twist it into opossing opinion when it suits their needs. So I can see where the misunderstanding comes from, but you're way off.
Show your references for your statistics, cause there are plenty on both sides of that argument. And they offset.
He's sick and tired? How is what I did any different from your high horsed critique of my post based on ignorant misinterpretation? It's not, you hippocrite.
No doubt. When I went and picked up my copy on release day I saw some little kid, and I mean 8 - 9, waiting in line with the game in hand. I thought to myself "No way this kid is going to buy this game, the shop keeper will stop him." Then, little man's Dad comes up when it's his turn and buys it for him. When he passed me I asked him if he knew what was in the game, and told him it was generally out of bounds for what most younger children can digest with complete comprehension.
You know what he told me.
Fuck Off.
I look forward to shooting that kid when he tries to rob me. Which I am going to increase my likelyhood of doing by playing SOCOM 3 right now.
That may be true, but many multinational corporations have huge amounts of financial pull in the US. If we were just to decide 'Hey, screw everybody - we're cutting you all off!" or some other ridiculous crap, we would be screwed.
No politician wants to say they had a hand in that, so it will never happen.
When we attacked Iraq, the fighting was in one country. True, there were some incidents of violence worldwide that could argueably have been a result of that action. There may also have been some countries that got a little screwed over in their preexisting oil supply contracts with Iraq and suffered as a result.
Now, lets compare that to the hypothetical aftermath of the US making a move negatively affecting every dialed in nation simultaneously. We would be absolutely screwed. It's one thing to piss off everyone in a room, it's another thing to go to everyone in that room and punch them in the face. We just wouldn't do it.
Even worse scenario. We decide we're going to exercise some sort of control that benefits our allies and everyone else can go screw themselves. Now count how many front's would be in the resulting war. Also ends up screwing it all up. The US may be arrogant at times, but we are not completely insane.
You're right, they are automated. They scrape message boards and then append all usernames to @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com, and such.
Now I will agree that spamfilters suck big time, across the board. Yet one of the easiest things you can do to stop your email from getting bombed is by not having your username be your address.
Hrrmmm, lemme guess. Your hotmail account was something like renderhead@hotmail.com. It doesn't take a genius to realize that most people use their usernames as ther free email addy's.
How would you have Microsoft stop that? Your choice in email addresses is probably what made you a spam target in the first place, not the fact that it was Hotmail.
For people who are impulsive this creates an point of sale inside their house. Instead of going out and buying a movie at a store, they can do it all wasted on their couch at 2:30 am. If you have kids, this allows you to take advantage of the rare unplanned lull in activity. Or you can get your kids a movie on Demand, and then have the disk in 2 days - saving you a difficult trip.
For those who are a little less impulsive, this could allow people the two step system of checking out a movie and then buying it right after if they liked it. All the benefits of an on demand rental, with none of the hassles of going to a store. This is assuming that the movies status would degrade from "to watch you must purchase DVD copy" to "watch with purchase option" after the movie became available on demand.
Comcast, and to an extent Circuit City, are slowly removing the "in my hands now" hurdle that online shopping has. Sure it's cheaper, but alot of people want it right this second, and the trip to the store and the extra bucks are worth it to them on certain purchases. If you can address that issue inside the online purchase model, you will become the first choice for most of the market.
...Isn't it your job to make the company run smoother and more efficiently? SO if you have to work longer hours to do that, you're getting screwed?
"I can't fathom how investors would accept that as a [good] way to spend your time," says David D'Alessandro, who ran John Hancock Financial Services Inc. until shortly after its 2004 acquisition by Manulife Financial Corp.
Notice he doesn't run that company anymore. He writes books instead. He may be a little out of the loop on what C-level culture has turned into.
I work with C-levels in my business, so emailing them and getting a response is not that big a deal. I can see how it would really boost morale, and keep everyone on their toes, if the drones feel they could skip the middle man and go to the top with an idea or complaint. They will get direct credit for an idea, and won't have complaint's filtered by "buddy system" middle management.
You accuse me of being 'elitist', yet you yourself admit you would never allow you or your children to have the kinds of jobs your parents had. You clearly see that there are different 'classes' of jobs.
First off, I never accused you of being an elitist. I said you sound like an elitist, which is entirely different.
Second, I never said I wouldn't allow my children to have these jobs, I said I wouldn't allow it to happen to them. The difference being choice in the matter. To allow your children a choice is the greatest advantage you can give them. To define their future by lack of action on your part is failure as a parent.
If you turned out so well from being ignored why isn't this good enough for your own children?
My rebuttal was toward your attitude that being left to your own devices as a child was a recipie for turning out just like your parents. I am a case where that is not true. I never said that this was a prefered method of raising a child. I have an issue with your stance that the individual has no say in their future, and that because their mother was a maid they will be a maid. That's ignorant and elitist.
Now do you think your parents busted their ass and ignored you because they chose to or because they had to due to the nature of their work?
My parents never ignored me, as you stated they did twice, they just had to work more to make ends meet - making them less accessable. While they were at home, they were always engaging me in some way. The nature of their work never entered into it. A lawyer who works 100 hours a week and makes a ton of money is just as available to their children as an unskilled worker who works 100 hours a week at two jobs. The difference being the amount of money in the bank account.
Also, I am curious what does your maid do that you and your wife wouldn't do yourselves to save your own marriage?
Not having to maintain all the little details of a house (baseboards, dusting, major bathroom cleaning, washing and changing sheets for 3 beds, washing tablecloths) relieves a lot of stress from an environment. And when you have kids, a job, a business where other peoples livelyhoods are at stake, and try to balance that with a good home life - things get stressful. Her help has probably saved us from countless possible stress induced arguments. I never said I wouldn't do anything my maid does, and never said my wife wouldn't either.
My maid gets paid more because she's paying her way through college and I respect that. She is also trustworthy in regards to me and my wife leaving her alone at my house and giving her a key, which is almost priceless these days. I pay my graphic artist her rate because she can be replaced, they are a dime a dozen here in Atlanta. I like her work, that is why I use her exclusively, but she doesn't bring something to the table that is difficult to replace, like being trustworthy enough to have a key to my home.
First off I suggest you reread my post and address what I said, not your misinterpretation of it. Second, I suggest you take an economics course before you start trying to dictate to me what is a fair payrate for certain jobs. It's called supply and demand. There is a great supply of graphic artists in this town, so the service is not irreplacable. Trustworthiness to the degree of being able to work in my home without supervision is entirely different. It is worth overpaying for to ensure she does not go anywhere else. If my graphic artist started refusing the rate I pay her for her work, then I would consider the rate she would ask for. But if I could not legitimize paying for it, I would have to part ways. That is her choice. The reason she doesn't do that is because she knows the condition of the market here.
When you start helping out the economy by employing people yourself, out of your own pocket, we can have this discussion as equals. Until then, keep you ignorant misquotations and statements to yourself.
We're all so caught up in how the rich (those bastards) live relative to us that we rarely realize how nice we really have it.
Here, Here!
Who cares what the Joneses are doing? The biggest problem I see here in Atlanta is people afraid of "looking like their poor." I have heard this more than once, and I think it's pathetic. No one ever got rich by spending their money on stuff they didn't NEED. Need being the operative word. If you will die without it, you need it. You don't need a TV, video game system, fancy car, plane, or silver dining utensils.
I grew up as part of a working class family, and my parents were really never around. I was what was called a "latch-key kid." I didn't grow up to do what either of my parents did, in fact, I own my own business.
The economic situations of those who immigrate here to "clean up after the children of rich people and send the money home" would be far worse if they didn't choose to come here. The people who have made that decision have done it so they could offer a better life for thier children than what they have now. If they didn't act at all, the situation would be much worse.
My parents busting their ass for me had the opposite effect, I decided that that was never going to happen to me or anyone coming into my family after me. My parents are taken care of, and I should be able to pay for my children's educations without worry. This all came at the cost of my personal time. I chose to spend time with my family, and sacrifice my personal time to do it. I chose to bust my ass in school instead of partying all the time. Mostly due to the fact that I was paying for it myself. It's mostly about choice.
when you buy a service from someone you are in fact buying them for a period of time and this has all sorts of social and economic consequences
This is true of any person who holds a job. To bemone that one has to make economic choices is ridiculous. Some people choose jobs that pay less so they can have time with their children and some people choose jobs that pay more so that they can offer have more money for their family. Some people have chosen to have too many kids and must now work a job that doesn't allow them much family time in order to make ends meet. Some people choose not to have kids so they can live comfortably and without those responsibilities.
In fact, hiring a maid has NO negative social and economic impact. I am employing someone, thats adding to the distribution of wealth. In particular, my employee's wealth. I in no way, shape, or form caused the economic situation of my maid by offering her a job. Her choices in life, and the preexisting economic climate she was born into, have lead her to a position where she was given the option to work for me or to not work for me. There are environmental factors to everyones life, to pity that is to do an injustice to those who strive to overcome it.
Why didn't you argue that the graphic artist I employ was suffering from the same woes? In actuallity she makes less than my maid. Is it because you think that being a maid is a shitty job? Or because you think my maid had no other choice but to be a maid? You kinda sound like an elitist who percieves value of one profession over another, regardless of the actual value to the employer. If it wasn't for my maid, I think I most certainly would have been divorced by now. I cannot say the same about my graphic artist.
I am in no way rich, but I do have multiple employees.
I have a maid. True, she does not come every day, more like once every two weeks to give everything a major once over.
I have an accountant to help me with my taxes and my business books.
I have a graphic artist I use almost exclusively because her work is so damn good.
The rich don't buy people, they purchase the services of people, otherwise they would be slaves. Now, it may be arguable that rich people can purchase loyalty, but there is still that whole issue of free will.
Nah, all they have is a website hosted on sourceforge. No placement there.
Liero was huge when I was in highschool - and that's just a lone-dev freeware game.
Yeah, with an outlet on Gaming Universe.
The point is, these two games didn't just get built, put up on their website and just left there for word of mouth to do it's thing. They were placed where they would get noticed. True word of mouth is VERY rare.
"Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society,"
Can anyone tell me when it wasn't popular opinion of the older people on the planet that the 18-29 demographic threatened the "values at the core of our society"?
I think the real nauseating thing about all studies of this nature is that they have the same template. Statistic X shows that group Y engages in activity Z. Activity Z has a parallel to activity A. We are doomed! People have been screaming this crap for eternity on any number of subjects. A correlation study looks just as good as a causal study to those who don't understand logical relationships and the manipulation of statistics.
It's wierd how industries are now funding studies to use as marketing pieces instead of funding studies in order to make educated decisions. No one involved with this study really cares if it's correct or not, just if it works towards the desired purpose - which is to associate P2P users with criminals.
If someone does stand up for using P2P software because it has a lot of legal and valid uses, the inundated will retort with a "you just say that because you don't want to pay for product whatever." This is even more likely as your average citizen couldn't even tell you the nuances of P2P software. What they do know is that it is filled with spyware/adware, you can be sued by a really big corporate entity for using it, and there is now a study associating people who use it with criminals. These may be half truths, but the only half that stuck with the populace is the negative half.
There is no active opposing campaign of the same nature. The geeks may be screaming that P2P software is not evil, and they may be winning some cases relative to the point, but they are slowly losing the favor of the plebs. If we want to stop this crap from happening were going to have to accept a couple of things. We need to communicate the value of P2P to the populace using a vocabulary that they can understand and that demonstrates it has a legitimate value to everyone, not just the techno geeks. We also need to get off our high horse and play the same game the big guys do. Our refusal to use marketing techniques because we find them morally reprehensible is a crock of shit. Used correctly, there is nothing evil about it. Just look at how the truth campaign did it. And since we are a bunch of pretty smart guys, I'm sure we could come up with a study that is not only statistically correct, but one compelling as well.
No need to resist it if you honestly feel the game is good. I push my friends shit all the time, if it's good.
I quite often tell companies, and the PR guys I work with, to toss off if the stuff they want me to push sucks. They have to use an established marketing vehicle. The people I seed stuff to would laugh in my face if I tried to pass them some of the crap I get from these guys.
The stealth marketing really only works if the product is good, otherwise it backfires. Then you have a whole army of people packing "street cred" who are talking shit about your product.
Kinda, but your peers didn't just "happen" across it. I work real close with a couple of PR guys doing clandestine marketing for them. You can generate buzz for much less than it costs to inundate someone with branding. Not only that, but it's not evil in the sense that we don't make up your mind for you as branding attempts to do. Buzz marketing is all about placing the product in front of a key group of people. People who are the authority on your product type in their social group AND posess the curiosity and intelligence to do thier own research on a product. That way they feel like they "found" something new (which they did with a little help) and will speak about it in a very avangelical manner if they like it. Their friends WILL follow.
Slashdot Mirror
It has never been the case that whistleblowers have a "right" to be anonymous. This has been a commonly followed convention, because it serves the public good.
My choice of the word whistleblower was a poor choice as there are laws dealing with curcumstances that are called whistleblower laws. My choice of vocabulary might have lead to a misunderstanding.
What I was trying to say is people with information that could be regarded as important, yet incriminating, will end up thinking twice before going to a journalist with their story if that journalist does not have this license because they will not be protected as a source.
nondisclosure of sources is not freedom of expression, so the determination of who is covered and who is not is therefore not a first amendment issue.
Your right, it is not a first amendment issue, yet it is interwoven with the concept, leading me to my next point.
Who has freedom of speech IS clearly defined: insofar as the government is explicitly prohibited from abridging free speech.
Yes, and this freedom is protected by the freedom of the press. It is the press that reports on these violations to make them known to the populace at hand. If someones first amendment rights have been violated, and it is not reported, there is no leverage the plebs can use as influence in the court. Sure, you can still hire a lawyer and file a case, but an entity that has the power to truly quash your first amendment rights probably has the resources to drag the case out, and win with deeper pockets. If this same entity does not have to worry about its public image, due to no reporting, I am willing to venture they won't care.
This could also be used to attack those who do exercise their free speech. Let's say a person begins to speak out against entity X, where X is very influencial and deep pocketed. This person (citizen A) begins to reveal information that is factual about entity X's behavior. Reporter B, who is a licensed reporter, doesn't like what citizen A is saying. In an attempt to discredit him, reporter B begins making up horrible things that have occured in citizen A's past that can only be corroborated by "his source", which does not exist. If Reporter B is licensed, he is protected from having to reveal his source, which works out just fine because the source doesn't exist. Reporter B can now do this with impunity because he does not need to worry about jailtime. There is no punishment other than the possibility of being fired, which won't happen. If you think reporters don't make up stuff, look up Stephen Glass. Citizen A's following loss of credibility has now subverted his freedom of speech. Yes Citizen A was still able to talk, but now no one will listen. I do understand that the freedom of speech is not the right to an audience, but if it can be so easily undermined - it is a useless freedom. A freedom that is only given so the masses can believe they are free.
Once again I will state that this scenario has one foot firmly entrenched in tinfoil hat land. I will also agree that technically your point is correct, freedom of speech is not legally being affected here. My argument is it's social and political value can be seriously devalued and nullified by the possible misuse of this legislation.
If we agree on anything, it's that journalists being able to have anonymous sources helps society. But where we differ appears to be that you consider that a right that is granted by the first amendment, and I think it is no such right, but should be a privilege as granted by some criteria established by law.
I actually think we may agree on more than that, the one thing I do not agree with is defining who is and who isn't allowed to protect their sources. By creating a definition that is maintained by government we would be laying the groundwork for the government controlling the news. Is this directly preventing free speech, no it isn't in the legal sense, but I firmly believe that it is crippling to the social aspects of free speech that are supported by a free press, not a regulated press.
With licensure comes a defined criteria one must meet to be licensed. By its very definition, some people will fall outside that definition. Those people will not be protected. This is a possible first step to quashing free speech.
If it is clearly defined that you are not protected by the shield law, it is safe to assume that you could be arrested for distributing information without a license if you attempt to protect your source. If this is the case, how long until politicians change the definitions and requirements for licensure to begin omitting parties that they would like to silence? Or begin altering the definition of source?
Confidential sources is not even close to meeting this definition, not the least of which is that the journalist is not on trial for anything.
Yet, the journalist still becomes imprisioned, how nice. Your statements are true in that as it stands, all citizens can be arrested for not divulging sources requested by a subpoena. It is this very lack of definition that allows all of us to speak about unsavory events. Now if you change that dynamic by defining two distinct groups, one that is afforded that protection and one that is not, you create an "information class". This information class will be smaller than the existing "journalist" population, that you can be sure of. This in turn will limit the outlets that whistleblowers can go to.
How long till this legislature is used to define OpEd's based on some criteria? It in and of itself is not threatening free speech itself, but it is the key to opening that door.
I know I am going to get railed for this.
In this land of spin and partisanship - I would dare to say that anyone who used superlatives is not a journalist. Because their use infers opinion and a perspective. And there is no such thing as a objective perspective.
The one case where this may not hold true is where numbers involved in the story are in fact the greatest or smallest recorded value of their respective measurement. I hope that made sense.
That's not what should make your head spin.
Let's say they do nail down a definition for Journalist that everyone can kinda agree on. And when I say that, I say it very skeptically because no one is going to agree on that. So a trite and vague definition will be used.
After this happens, you have to prove that you are allowed this "sheild" by registering as a journalist or obtaining a license. This WILL happen if for no other reason than to be able to collect revenue off of the process.
Now the politicians have a way to define who can and cannot inform the people on their behavior without being subject to jail time. I understand this is the underlying point of the discussion, but the central focus is being put on bloggers to screen the real problem.
Take it one step further into tinfoil hat land, and the government will be able to use this to not only classify who can and cannot use free speech freely, but who is allowed to report on whether or not that speech was really necessary. The implications get pretty nasty after that.
I am the one who was told to "Fuck Off." Now read my post again, when did I tell him what he could buy? When did I say he shouldn't buy it for his kid? When did I state that I support legislation like this? I didn't, that's because I don't. In fact, I'm one of the people who actually does something about it and volunteers my skills in helping oppose it.
You say I questioned his actions? I asked if he knew what was in the game. I was attempting to inform HIM! Not make a judgement call, not raise his kid for him, not instill my values. Inform. You know why? Because if he bought this game not knowing what the content was (because he was one of the countless adults who thought games are for kids), saw his child playing it, and then became offended - HE WOULD BE THE TYPE OF PERSON TO SUPPORT THIS LAW!
Wow, I must be some sort off asshole for trying to nip the problem in the bud. Trying to solve the problem through open dialog at the source, the parent, and not through needless legislation. You guys amaze me. You scream at the top of your lungs that you don't want legislation like this to become a reality. Yet, when someoen takes the "educate the parents" route, you shoot that down too. I guess we should all be able to do what we want when we want and not let each other know if we don't think thats a good idea. Yeah, that will work.
To address the response I got, look at the post I was originally posting to. It deals with parents not giving a shit about what there kids play, or what media they ingest. I was relating a story illustrating that point. You, and likeminded people, decided to interpret that as me forcing my values and getting on a high horse. How the hell did you get that out of my post?
If you are of the opinion that recreational sex, gang violence, and more instances of the word "fuck" than I could count are ok for a 9 year old, cool. Have at it. And on a case by case basis, it might have been OK for that particular child, yet that wasn't the point of my post at all. In most cases, younger children cannot digest these things with complete comprehension of their context, they haven't even finished developing socially enough to have the tools to do so. Source me a child psychologist that states otherwise and I will reconsider my stance on that.
Generally it is the parent who is ill informed when it comes to the content of a game, not the child. I never got that far in the discussion because he told me to fuck off. Probably because he thought the same ignorant thing you did, that I was trying to raise his child for him instead of informing him. Had he said "I know what the game is about", it would have ended there. Cool, sorry to have bothered you. That's not what happened. He told me to fuck off. Now, if you think thats a good example of social behavior to exhibit in front of your 9 year old, fine. Just don't expect me to support it.
Quote me where I told that guy how to raise his kid, or what he should or shouldn't buy for him. Hell, tell me where I stated I support this law too.
Yeah, I know. The difference being that I don't need to post AC to voice my opinion because I'm actually proud of it.
/. Karma, are we? Get some real priorities.
Worried about our
I in no way was trying to tell him how to raise his child. I was doing what I thought was right and letting him know that the material is generally considered too mature for younger kids. I was actually making sure HE was informed. He may not have been, he could have been one of those people who still thinks games are for kids. Then he would have become one of the people SUPPORTING this type of legislation.
/. mindset to take cynicism and twist it into opossing opinion when it suits their needs. So I can see where the misunderstanding comes from, but you're way off.
Buy whatever you want for your kids, you have to pay for the consequences. I don't want to try and actually STOP you, but I'm never going to hold my tongue when it comes to passing information.
Now tell me, when did I try to tell him what he should buy for his kid? I didn't.
When did I say that violent video games caused minors to commit crimes? I didn't outright, but it is the
Show your references for your statistics, cause there are plenty on both sides of that argument. And they offset.
He's sick and tired? How is what I did any different from your high horsed critique of my post based on ignorant misinterpretation? It's not, you hippocrite.
No doubt. When I went and picked up my copy on release day I saw some little kid, and I mean 8 - 9, waiting in line with the game in hand. I thought to myself "No way this kid is going to buy this game, the shop keeper will stop him." Then, little man's Dad comes up when it's his turn and buys it for him. When he passed me I asked him if he knew what was in the game, and told him it was generally out of bounds for what most younger children can digest with complete comprehension.
You know what he told me.
Fuck Off.
I look forward to shooting that kid when he tries to rob me. Which I am going to increase my likelyhood of doing by playing SOCOM 3 right now.
That may be true, but many multinational corporations have huge amounts of financial pull in the US. If we were just to decide 'Hey, screw everybody - we're cutting you all off!" or some other ridiculous crap, we would be screwed.
No politician wants to say they had a hand in that, so it will never happen.
When we attacked Iraq, the fighting was in one country. True, there were some incidents of violence worldwide that could argueably have been a result of that action. There may also have been some countries that got a little screwed over in their preexisting oil supply contracts with Iraq and suffered as a result.
Now, lets compare that to the hypothetical aftermath of the US making a move negatively affecting every dialed in nation simultaneously. We would be absolutely screwed. It's one thing to piss off everyone in a room, it's another thing to go to everyone in that room and punch them in the face. We just wouldn't do it.
Even worse scenario. We decide we're going to exercise some sort of control that benefits our allies and everyone else can go screw themselves. Now count how many front's would be in the resulting war. Also ends up screwing it all up. The US may be arrogant at times, but we are not completely insane.
You're right, they are automated. They scrape message boards and then append all usernames to @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com, and such.
Now I will agree that spamfilters suck big time, across the board. Yet one of the easiest things you can do to stop your email from getting bombed is by not having your username be your address.
Hrrmmm, lemme guess. Your hotmail account was something like renderhead@hotmail.com. It doesn't take a genius to realize that most people use their usernames as ther free email addy's.
How would you have Microsoft stop that? Your choice in email addresses is probably what made you a spam target in the first place, not the fact that it was Hotmail.
Be accountable.
That's a nice little twist.
For people who are impulsive this creates an point of sale inside their house. Instead of going out and buying a movie at a store, they can do it all wasted on their couch at 2:30 am. If you have kids, this allows you to take advantage of the rare unplanned lull in activity. Or you can get your kids a movie on Demand, and then have the disk in 2 days - saving you a difficult trip.
For those who are a little less impulsive, this could allow people the two step system of checking out a movie and then buying it right after if they liked it. All the benefits of an on demand rental, with none of the hassles of going to a store. This is assuming that the movies status would degrade from "to watch you must purchase DVD copy" to "watch with purchase option" after the movie became available on demand.
Comcast, and to an extent Circuit City, are slowly removing the "in my hands now" hurdle that online shopping has. Sure it's cheaper, but alot of people want it right this second, and the trip to the store and the extra bucks are worth it to them on certain purchases. If you can address that issue inside the online purchase model, you will become the first choice for most of the market.
...Isn't it your job to make the company run smoother and more efficiently? SO if you have to work longer hours to do that, you're getting screwed?
"I can't fathom how investors would accept that as a [good] way to spend your time," says David D'Alessandro, who ran John Hancock Financial Services Inc. until shortly after its 2004 acquisition by Manulife Financial Corp.
Notice he doesn't run that company anymore. He writes books instead. He may be a little out of the loop on what C-level culture has turned into.
I work with C-levels in my business, so emailing them and getting a response is not that big a deal. I can see how it would really boost morale, and keep everyone on their toes, if the drones feel they could skip the middle man and go to the top with an idea or complaint. They will get direct credit for an idea, and won't have complaint's filtered by "buddy system" middle management.
Well, that's in the Amazing storyline, which is the original.
This is the Ultimate storyline. So they are actually different, but the same.
It's just the same old comic book universe splintering for more titles to sell thing.
You accuse me of being 'elitist', yet you yourself admit you would never allow you or your children to have the kinds of jobs your parents had. You clearly see that there are different 'classes' of jobs.
First off, I never accused you of being an elitist. I said you sound like an elitist, which is entirely different.
Second, I never said I wouldn't allow my children to have these jobs, I said I wouldn't allow it to happen to them. The difference being choice in the matter. To allow your children a choice is the greatest advantage you can give them. To define their future by lack of action on your part is failure as a parent.
If you turned out so well from being ignored why isn't this good enough for your own children?
My rebuttal was toward your attitude that being left to your own devices as a child was a recipie for turning out just like your parents. I am a case where that is not true. I never said that this was a prefered method of raising a child. I have an issue with your stance that the individual has no say in their future, and that because their mother was a maid they will be a maid. That's ignorant and elitist.
Now do you think your parents busted their ass and ignored you because they chose to or because they had to due to the nature of their work?
My parents never ignored me, as you stated they did twice, they just had to work more to make ends meet - making them less accessable. While they were at home, they were always engaging me in some way. The nature of their work never entered into it. A lawyer who works 100 hours a week and makes a ton of money is just as available to their children as an unskilled worker who works 100 hours a week at two jobs. The difference being the amount of money in the bank account.
Also, I am curious what does your maid do that you and your wife wouldn't do yourselves to save your own marriage?
Not having to maintain all the little details of a house (baseboards, dusting, major bathroom cleaning, washing and changing sheets for 3 beds, washing tablecloths) relieves a lot of stress from an environment. And when you have kids, a job, a business where other peoples livelyhoods are at stake, and try to balance that with a good home life - things get stressful. Her help has probably saved us from countless possible stress induced arguments. I never said I wouldn't do anything my maid does, and never said my wife wouldn't either.
My maid gets paid more because she's paying her way through college and I respect that. She is also trustworthy in regards to me and my wife leaving her alone at my house and giving her a key, which is almost priceless these days. I pay my graphic artist her rate because she can be replaced, they are a dime a dozen here in Atlanta. I like her work, that is why I use her exclusively, but she doesn't bring something to the table that is difficult to replace, like being trustworthy enough to have a key to my home.
First off I suggest you reread my post and address what I said, not your misinterpretation of it. Second, I suggest you take an economics course before you start trying to dictate to me what is a fair payrate for certain jobs. It's called supply and demand. There is a great supply of graphic artists in this town, so the service is not irreplacable. Trustworthiness to the degree of being able to work in my home without supervision is entirely different. It is worth overpaying for to ensure she does not go anywhere else. If my graphic artist started refusing the rate I pay her for her work, then I would consider the rate she would ask for. But if I could not legitimize paying for it, I would have to part ways. That is her choice. The reason she doesn't do that is because she knows the condition of the market here.
When you start helping out the economy by employing people yourself, out of your own pocket, we can have this discussion as equals. Until then, keep you ignorant misquotations and statements to yourself.
We're all so caught up in how the rich (those bastards) live relative to us that we rarely realize how nice we really have it.
Here, Here!
Who cares what the Joneses are doing? The biggest problem I see here in Atlanta is people afraid of "looking like their poor." I have heard this more than once, and I think it's pathetic. No one ever got rich by spending their money on stuff they didn't NEED. Need being the operative word. If you will die without it, you need it. You don't need a TV, video game system, fancy car, plane, or silver dining utensils.
I would have to disagree here also.
I grew up as part of a working class family, and my parents were really never around. I was what was called a "latch-key kid." I didn't grow up to do what either of my parents did, in fact, I own my own business.
The economic situations of those who immigrate here to "clean up after the children of rich people and send the money home" would be far worse if they didn't choose to come here. The people who have made that decision have done it so they could offer a better life for thier children than what they have now. If they didn't act at all, the situation would be much worse.
My parents busting their ass for me had the opposite effect, I decided that that was never going to happen to me or anyone coming into my family after me. My parents are taken care of, and I should be able to pay for my children's educations without worry. This all came at the cost of my personal time. I chose to spend time with my family, and sacrifice my personal time to do it. I chose to bust my ass in school instead of partying all the time. Mostly due to the fact that I was paying for it myself. It's mostly about choice.
when you buy a service from someone you are in fact buying them for a period of time and this has all sorts of social and economic consequences
This is true of any person who holds a job. To bemone that one has to make economic choices is ridiculous. Some people choose jobs that pay less so they can have time with their children and some people choose jobs that pay more so that they can offer have more money for their family. Some people have chosen to have too many kids and must now work a job that doesn't allow them much family time in order to make ends meet. Some people choose not to have kids so they can live comfortably and without those responsibilities.
In fact, hiring a maid has NO negative social and economic impact. I am employing someone, thats adding to the distribution of wealth. In particular, my employee's wealth. I in no way, shape, or form caused the economic situation of my maid by offering her a job. Her choices in life, and the preexisting economic climate she was born into, have lead her to a position where she was given the option to work for me or to not work for me. There are environmental factors to everyones life, to pity that is to do an injustice to those who strive to overcome it.
Why didn't you argue that the graphic artist I employ was suffering from the same woes? In actuallity she makes less than my maid. Is it because you think that being a maid is a shitty job? Or because you think my maid had no other choice but to be a maid? You kinda sound like an elitist who percieves value of one profession over another, regardless of the actual value to the employer. If it wasn't for my maid, I think I most certainly would have been divorced by now. I cannot say the same about my graphic artist.
This isn't really true.
I am in no way rich, but I do have multiple employees.
I have a maid. True, she does not come every day, more like once every two weeks to give everything a major once over.
I have an accountant to help me with my taxes and my business books.
I have a graphic artist I use almost exclusively because her work is so damn good.
The rich don't buy people, they purchase the services of people, otherwise they would be slaves. Now, it may be arguable that rich people can purchase loyalty, but there is still that whole issue of free will.
Does Armagetron have PR people?
Nah, all they have is a website hosted on sourceforge. No placement there.
Liero was huge when I was in highschool - and that's just a lone-dev freeware game.
Yeah, with an outlet on Gaming Universe.
The point is, these two games didn't just get built, put up on their website and just left there for word of mouth to do it's thing. They were placed where they would get noticed. True word of mouth is VERY rare.
Awesome quote by the way.
Here is an example of Canadian Human (Economic) rights violations.
I can't go to a school that teaches in my language.
These were the only things I could find, and I tried really hard too.
"Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society,"
Can anyone tell me when it wasn't popular opinion of the older people on the planet that the 18-29 demographic threatened the "values at the core of our society"?
I think the real nauseating thing about all studies of this nature is that they have the same template. Statistic X shows that group Y engages in activity Z. Activity Z has a parallel to activity A. We are doomed! People have been screaming this crap for eternity on any number of subjects. A correlation study looks just as good as a causal study to those who don't understand logical relationships and the manipulation of statistics.
It's wierd how industries are now funding studies to use as marketing pieces instead of funding studies in order to make educated decisions. No one involved with this study really cares if it's correct or not, just if it works towards the desired purpose - which is to associate P2P users with criminals.
If someone does stand up for using P2P software because it has a lot of legal and valid uses, the inundated will retort with a "you just say that because you don't want to pay for product whatever." This is even more likely as your average citizen couldn't even tell you the nuances of P2P software. What they do know is that it is filled with spyware/adware, you can be sued by a really big corporate entity for using it, and there is now a study associating people who use it with criminals. These may be half truths, but the only half that stuck with the populace is the negative half.
There is no active opposing campaign of the same nature. The geeks may be screaming that P2P software is not evil, and they may be winning some cases relative to the point, but they are slowly losing the favor of the plebs. If we want to stop this crap from happening were going to have to accept a couple of things. We need to communicate the value of P2P to the populace using a vocabulary that they can understand and that demonstrates it has a legitimate value to everyone, not just the techno geeks. We also need to get off our high horse and play the same game the big guys do. Our refusal to use marketing techniques because we find them morally reprehensible is a crock of shit. Used correctly, there is nothing evil about it. Just look at how the truth campaign did it. And since we are a bunch of pretty smart guys, I'm sure we could come up with a study that is not only statistically correct, but one compelling as well.
Can anyone name a country that isn't violating a Human Right in some way, shape, or form?
No need to resist it if you honestly feel the game is good. I push my friends shit all the time, if it's good.
I quite often tell companies, and the PR guys I work with, to toss off if the stuff they want me to push sucks. They have to use an established marketing vehicle. The people I seed stuff to would laugh in my face if I tried to pass them some of the crap I get from these guys.
The stealth marketing really only works if the product is good, otherwise it backfires. Then you have a whole army of people packing "street cred" who are talking shit about your product.
Bingo. But getting a story posted on /. is an entirely different beast. It's not as easy as it sounds. It's not impossible, just so simple.
Kinda, but your peers didn't just "happen" across it. I work real close with a couple of PR guys doing clandestine marketing for them. You can generate buzz for much less than it costs to inundate someone with branding. Not only that, but it's not evil in the sense that we don't make up your mind for you as branding attempts to do. Buzz marketing is all about placing the product in front of a key group of people. People who are the authority on your product type in their social group AND posess the curiosity and intelligence to do thier own research on a product. That way they feel like they "found" something new (which they did with a little help) and will speak about it in a very avangelical manner if they like it. Their friends WILL follow.