Here we go again, another/.'er who has no understanding of the complexity of capitalism as a system saying that the bad parts of capitalism aren't capitalism at all. Sort of like 1980's-era Soviet sympathizers complaining that the economic woes of the USSR was not a product of either socialism or communism.
Wake up. Capitalism is global at this point, and the way in which it hooks up to the legal system, the loopholes and exceptions to the "free" market are the direct product of capitalism.
It's not ideal, but it is exactly capitalism.
Where the hell else do you think Microsoft is headquarted? On Mars?
And spammers? They spam because of the globalization of capital, regardless of the economic organization of their country of origin.
I don't think all problems are the side-effect of capitalism, but these two most definitely are.
You're missing the point (or refusing to believe) that there might be a cause for your symptoms.
Why does Windows crash so much? Because crappy software can flourish in a capitalist system where monopolies can operate with little or no regulation (which is not to say another economic organization would produce better software).
Why does spam waste your time? Because in a capitalist system it benefits people to flood channels if there is a profit in it. If spammers could not increase their capital by spamming, your time wouldn't be wasted.
Don't be so anti-intellectual that you can't admit that something might actually be causing your itch.
From the article: Imagine trying to communicate with another human being using just a mouse and a keyboard. It works, but it is slow and tedious.
Now, I'm not debunking the potential of a gesture-based interface, but something seems off about this remark. I'm thinking, for example, about text-based communication like oh, I don't know, Instant Messaging, CLI, posting on/.
I can't see all forms of human-to-human and human-to-machine communication will be enhanced by gesture-based interfaces.
If the buying public, whatever its racial composition, promotes/demands gangsta rap, and major media channels subsequently market and promote that image, then you have demand controlling production.
A young kid who might choose to stay in school finds instead that he can command the respect of his peers by selling drugs and defending his territory. He learns this because he sees it happening in his environment and he chooses to do the same because everything tells him it's cool to do so: his peers, his enemies, his media.
The relationship between the privileged promoting a way of life by voting with their dollars is a partial cause, yes, but a cause nonetheless.
A smaller percentage user base can still equal lots of people. Consider.
The early rev iMacs shipped in the couple millions. The pro models ship somewhere near several hundred thousand per quarter. In terms of total sales of computers, the percentage is in the high single digits. That is, "small" user base.
But several million people, last I checked, is a LOT of people.
You're full of it, and a coward to boot. Post with your id, why don't you?
I'm writing my dissertation, in the process of earning a Ph.D. in English, so I have plenty of education. I don't use drugs. I teach at the University of Virginia. I am biracial and am at times racially oppressed.
What's so hard to believe about the possibility that some of us experience oppression in ways you cannot understand?
I'm not saying oppressed people don't do bad things. They do. But most oppressed people don't do such things. Most oppressed people--black, white, geek, female, asian (what you call chink), handicapped--are exactly that: oppressed.
(Before you mod me into troll/flamebait heaven, consider that I am taking on issues of race and cultural history and talking about such things is hard to do without offending...)
I find it amazing and appalling (but not surprising) that the response to this essay is for now dominated by racist trolls. Of course, one cannot say the writer's of these responses are racist, but their words certainly are.
Harlem in the 1930s was a flourshing center of art, culture, literature, and music. The boom period known as the Harlem Renaissance is unparalleled in American history with perhaps the exception of the late 1960s, also known as the Countercultural Revolution. The Harlem Renaissance inspired poets such as Gwendolyn Brooks and Langston Hughes, musicians the likes of Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie, novelists such as Zora Neale Hurston and Ralph Ellison, and painters like Jacob Lawrence.
Art Deco, the style of art and architecture that exalts urbanism and the modernist avant-garde, flourished during this time, undoubtedly due to the broad sex appeal of jazz, an African-American musical form.
The amazing part about the Harlem Renaissance is that this is period of cultural growth during one of the most abysmal periods in economic history, a period so awful it is named "The Great Depression." You may not know a damn thing about niggers, but you should know that like the Founding Fathers of the United States, they know how to survive when things are tough. But more importantly, they know how to survive with style.
Niggers also have quite a bit in common with geeks. They are despised for their gifts and feared for their power. "Beautiful people" commit violence upon blacks and geeks and laugh about it. Now, imagine being a black geek (reading at -1) and coming to this thread.
It's now 2002, and the systematic (if unorganized) oppression and rejection of African Americans as "niggers" and "shit" is as strong as ever. In the early part of the twentieth century, groups of European-Americans killed blacks with impunity. Blacks were lynched and the KKK was scapegoated for America's racial hatred. I'm not saying the KKK were not guilty, but they were singled out, while everyday forms of racism survive unscathed.
Slashdot is one of my favorite webites. But I've never for a second doubted that some of my fellow/.'ers are racists. Now I have the proof. But I also know many/.'ers really don't have a lot to say about race, and the silence is deafening. So I thought in addition to those moderators who are on the job that I'd send out a few tendrils and try to turn up the signal to noise ratio, FWIW.
Sure, saying "asbestos causes cancer" is FUD, if by FUD you mean "Fear," "Uncertainty," and "Doubt".
In this case, however, FUD does not mean "unverifiable myth."
If you're curious about the level of toxicity of asbestos, try going here.
The upshot of that site reads as follows:
Asbestos is well recognized as a carcinogen. It causes lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other cancers. The people at highest risk are those with very heavy exposure, usually over many years on the job. Smoking acts together with asbestos to greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. While asbestos use is much less common now than it was years ago, there is still a potential for exposure in older buildings and products.
Furthermore, many kinds of toner are listed as possible human carcinogens. One of the reasons for this may be that conclusive evidence has not yet been gathered (read: powerful lobby to defund government studies).
The first 5 pages of this Google search yields results you might find handy.
(Some wank modded the earlier version as "overrated" when it didn't even have a rating, so I'll risk it again.)
The article opines that
We believe e-mail is no more intrusive than direct mail, telemarketing or TV advertising when it comes to politicians seeking to reach voters.
Mike McCurry's and Larry Purpuro's point is that since we don't mind carrier mail spam we should be open to email spam.
The problem, though, is that many of us do mind carrier mail spam, and we mind it very much
Email hasn't been around for all that long, and until recently (about 1998), email was not a venue for mass marketers. Email was a sanctuary from spam, a place where we could get away from advertising. Many of us resent commercial intrusion into our email because we are sick near to death of the rampant advertising in every other aspect of our lives.
The way that quote should be read is that people are sick of most mass marketing. We don't want email spam and, God only knows, we don't want carrier mail spam, either.
I know this post comes late in the game, but I haven't seen this point made in the above, so I'm going to shoot, FWIW.
The article opines that
We believe e-mail is no more intrusive than direct mail, telemarketing or TV advertising when it comes to politicians seeking to reach voters.
Mike McCurry's and Larry Purpuro's point is that since we don't mind carrier mail spam we should be open to email spam.
The problem, thouhg, is that many of us do mind carrier mail spam, and we mind it very much
Email hasn't been around for all that long, and until recently (about 1998), email was not a venue for mass marketers. Email was a sanctuary from spam, a place where we could get away from advertising. Many of us resent commercial intrusion into our email because we are sick near to death of the rampant advertising in every other aspect of our lives.
The way that quote should be read is that people are sick of most mass marketing. We don't want email spam and, God only knows, we don't want carrier mail spam, either.
If it's true that Starbucks wants to capitalize on the presence of WiFi users in Pioneer Square and is doing so by jamming the incumbent channel (as well as degrading the access of their own users), Personal Telco's moving to a different channel may not help.
Starbucks could simply migrate their services or, more likely, establish presence on that channel as well. Starbucks, it would seem, is intent not on occupying Personal Telco's space as much as assimilating Personal Telco's users
For the past several months, the warchalking meme has pervaded the distributed consciousness of the UK and these our United States (no off. to my overseas/.'ing brethren).
Why not warchalk your nodes, feed on the media hype?
Warchlaking seems to me a really sexy way of advertising access points. I'm guessing this sexiness is to due to Matt Jones applying his talent as a designer to iconifying node info.
Many/.'ers thumb their noses at the academy. Who needs a degree if you have the skills? Why pay money for a piece of paper when one can get right to coding? But the acceptance digital media within the ivy-covered walls can help the acceptance of digital media as more than "playing" video games, surfing pr0n, and "stealing" copyrighted content (not that any of these are not worthy endeavors in themselves;) ). One of the best ways to ensure the evaluation and production of digital media is to have them studied in an academic context, and only a tenured professoriat can make that happen in ways that matter academically.
At present, digital media are often marginalized as low-brow. Video-games are often blamed for encouraging mindless violence, the web is blamed for shortening attention spans, and security-checking is vilified as terrorism, email is the font of spam, and reverse-engineering is called breaking copyright. This is the public understanding of digital media.
Specialized software and digital research being done at the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanites is at present abstract and does little to affect the thinking of the unwashed masses of undergraduates, let alone the public at large. But this kind of work is important because it influences the scholars who drive the field, and their work goes largely unnoticed by the established disciplines that might most benefit from them. On the other hand publicly-accessible texts are in many ways the "content" the web has been looking for (as demonstrated by usage), but recognition of such projects is still limited to circles of elite users. This must change, and a cohort of professors teaching students can help bring about that change.
Creating an established body of scholars able to use computers in ways that help normal people understand how Art and Architecture, Modern Languages and Film shape the world in which we live--this will further the widescale acceptance of digital media as worthile and noble ones.
It is important that people see digital media as more than video-games and surfing the web. Devising a body of standards by which digital media can be evaluated in the context of tenure review (limited though that context might be) will help.
The need for a set of standards to review and assign value to the digital work of humanities scholars is crucial to the culture of computing.
IBM Microelectronics will present a new 64-bit PowerPC architecture for desktops in October at the Microprocessor Forum.
and a little later
"Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing," the description says.
Sure, on one level it's funny, but I think grytpype's post has been mis-moderated; the comment is "insightful," a window into the pathological psychologies of spammers who want your click.
OK, that's what I get for taking myself so seriously.
But you weren't so clear about the nature of your threat in your original post (which I'm still not sure gets you off the hook). Maybe your English teacher has a point?
include an evaluation of our mores about the representation of violence (imagined and actual), the role of parenting, the authority of the state, the effect of hazing, etc.
don't you understand?
Why do you insist on simple solutions? What's wrong with legislation and responsible parenting?
Does your daughter have friends? Does she ever sleep over?
Her friend's parents are gone or permissive and she plays Quake for hours. She gets intoxicated and follows the imperatives of her hormones.
We don't need laws; we only need isolationist philosophy where we can't imagine that children are raised in a culture that contains millions of others. Nope, no culture here, just me and the nuclear family.
Repeal all laws now. I'm her daddy and I am enough.
Slashdot Mirror
So humankind, in its death throes, would launch the first salvos of interstellar biological warfare.
Arthur C. Clarke is a terrorist!
It's a joke . . .
I wouldn't trust you with my genome considering you can't even do simple arithmetic.
A 100% discount means you'll do it for free. Anything over that and you'd be more than bankrupt.
Here we go again, another /.'er who has no understanding of the complexity of capitalism as a system saying that the bad parts of capitalism aren't capitalism at all. Sort of like 1980's-era Soviet sympathizers complaining that the economic woes of the USSR was not a product of either socialism or communism.
Wake up. Capitalism is global at this point, and the way in which it hooks up to the legal system, the loopholes and exceptions to the "free" market are the direct product of capitalism.
It's not ideal, but it is exactly capitalism.
Where the hell else do you think Microsoft is headquarted? On Mars?
And spammers? They spam because of the globalization of capital, regardless of the economic organization of their country of origin.
I don't think all problems are the side-effect of capitalism, but these two most definitely are.
You're missing the point (or refusing to believe) that there might be a cause for your symptoms.
Why does Windows crash so much? Because crappy software can flourish in a capitalist system where monopolies can operate with little or no regulation (which is not to say another economic organization would produce better software).
Why does spam waste your time? Because in a capitalist system it benefits people to flood channels if there is a profit in it. If spammers could not increase their capital by spamming, your time wouldn't be wasted.
Don't be so anti-intellectual that you can't admit that something might actually be causing your itch.
From the article: Imagine trying to communicate with another human being using just a mouse and a keyboard. It works, but it is slow and tedious.
Now, I'm not debunking the potential of a gesture-based interface, but something seems off about this remark. I'm thinking, for example, about text-based communication like oh, I don't know, Instant Messaging, CLI, posting on /.
I can't see all forms of human-to-human and human-to-machine communication will be enhanced by gesture-based interfaces.
The return address on the Neflix envelope sitting in front of me is
If the buying public, whatever its racial composition, promotes/demands gangsta rap, and major media channels subsequently market and promote that image, then you have demand controlling production.
A young kid who might choose to stay in school finds instead that he can command the respect of his peers by selling drugs and defending his territory. He learns this because he sees it happening in his environment and he chooses to do the same because everything tells him it's cool to do so: his peers, his enemies, his media.
The relationship between the privileged promoting a way of life by voting with their dollars is a partial cause, yes, but a cause nonetheless.
A smaller percentage user base can still equal lots of people. Consider.
The early rev iMacs shipped in the couple millions. The pro models ship somewhere near several hundred thousand per quarter. In terms of total sales of computers, the percentage is in the high single digits. That is, "small" user base.
But several million people, last I checked, is a LOT of people.
You're full of it, and a coward to boot. Post with your id, why don't you?
I'm writing my dissertation, in the process of earning a Ph.D. in English, so I have plenty of education. I don't use drugs. I teach at the University of Virginia. I am biracial and am at times racially oppressed.
What's so hard to believe about the possibility that some of us experience oppression in ways you cannot understand?
I'm not saying oppressed people don't do bad things. They do. But most oppressed people don't do such things. Most oppressed people--black, white, geek, female, asian (what you call chink), handicapped--are exactly that: oppressed.
(Before you mod me into troll/flamebait heaven, consider that I am taking on issues of race and cultural history and talking about such things is hard to do without offending...)
I find it amazing and appalling (but not surprising) that the response to this essay is for now dominated by racist trolls. Of course, one cannot say the writer's of these responses are racist, but their words certainly are.Harlem in the 1930s was a flourshing center of art, culture, literature, and music. The boom period known as the Harlem Renaissance is unparalleled in American history with perhaps the exception of the late 1960s, also known as the Countercultural Revolution. The Harlem Renaissance inspired poets such as Gwendolyn Brooks and Langston Hughes, musicians the likes of Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie, novelists such as Zora Neale Hurston and Ralph Ellison, and painters like Jacob Lawrence.
Art Deco, the style of art and architecture that exalts urbanism and the modernist avant-garde, flourished during this time, undoubtedly due to the broad sex appeal of jazz, an African-American musical form.
The amazing part about the Harlem Renaissance is that this is period of cultural growth during one of the most abysmal periods in economic history, a period so awful it is named "The Great Depression." You may not know a damn thing about niggers, but you should know that like the Founding Fathers of the United States, they know how to survive when things are tough. But more importantly, they know how to survive with style.
Niggers also have quite a bit in common with geeks. They are despised for their gifts and feared for their power. "Beautiful people" commit violence upon blacks and geeks and laugh about it. Now, imagine being a black geek (reading at -1) and coming to this thread.
It's now 2002, and the systematic (if unorganized) oppression and rejection of African Americans as "niggers" and "shit" is as strong as ever. In the early part of the twentieth century, groups of European-Americans killed blacks with impunity. Blacks were lynched and the KKK was scapegoated for America's racial hatred. I'm not saying the KKK were not guilty, but they were singled out, while everyday forms of racism survive unscathed.
Slashdot is one of my favorite webites. But I've never for a second doubted that some of my fellow /.'ers are racists. Now I have the proof. But I also know many /.'ers really don't have a lot to say about race, and the silence is deafening. So I thought in addition to those moderators who are on the job that I'd send out a few tendrils and try to turn up the signal to noise ratio, FWIW.
Sure, saying "asbestos causes cancer" is FUD, if by FUD you mean "Fear," "Uncertainty," and "Doubt".
In this case, however, FUD does not mean "unverifiable myth."
If you're curious about the level of toxicity of asbestos, try going here.
The upshot of that site reads as follows:
Furthermore, many kinds of toner are listed as possible human carcinogens. One of the reasons for this may be that conclusive evidence has not yet been gathered (read: powerful lobby to defund government studies).
The first 5 pages of this Google search yields results you might find handy.
(Some wank modded the earlier version as "overrated" when it didn't even have a rating, so I'll risk it again.)
The article opines that We believe e-mail is no more intrusive than direct mail, telemarketing or TV advertising when it comes to politicians seeking to reach voters.
Mike McCurry's and Larry Purpuro's point is that since we don't mind carrier mail spam we should be open to email spam.
The problem, though, is that many of us do mind carrier mail spam, and we mind it very much
Email hasn't been around for all that long, and until recently (about 1998), email was not a venue for mass marketers. Email was a sanctuary from spam, a place where we could get away from advertising. Many of us resent commercial intrusion into our email because we are sick near to death of the rampant advertising in every other aspect of our lives.
The way that quote should be read is that people are sick of most mass marketing. We don't want email spam and, God only knows, we don't want carrier mail spam, either.
I know this post comes late in the game, but I haven't seen this point made in the above, so I'm going to shoot, FWIW.
The article opines that
Mike McCurry's and Larry Purpuro's point is that since we don't mind carrier mail spam we should be open to email spam.
The problem, thouhg, is that many of us do mind carrier mail spam, and we mind it very much
Email hasn't been around for all that long, and until recently (about 1998), email was not a venue for mass marketers. Email was a sanctuary from spam, a place where we could get away from advertising. Many of us resent commercial intrusion into our email because we are sick near to death of the rampant advertising in every other aspect of our lives.
The way that quote should be read is that people are sick of most mass marketing. We don't want email spam and, God only knows, we don't want carrier mail spam, either.
mistersquid
For the users of Personal Telco, anyway.
If it's true that Starbucks wants to capitalize on the presence of WiFi users in Pioneer Square and is doing so by jamming the incumbent channel (as well as degrading the access of their own users), Personal Telco's moving to a different channel may not help.
Starbucks could simply migrate their services or, more likely, establish presence on that channel as well. Starbucks, it would seem, is intent not on occupying Personal Telco's space as much as assimilating Personal Telco's users
No?
For the past several months, the warchalking meme has pervaded the distributed consciousness of the UK and these our United States (no off. to my overseas /.'ing brethren).
Why not warchalk your nodes, feed on the media hype?
Warchlaking seems to me a really sexy way of advertising access points. I'm guessing this sexiness is to due to Matt Jones applying his talent as a designer to iconifying node info.
Here's to giving Starbucks a wireless black eye.
msq
Many /.'ers thumb their noses at the academy. Who needs a degree if you have the skills? Why pay money for a piece of paper when one can get right to coding? But the acceptance digital media within the ivy-covered walls can help the acceptance of digital media as more than "playing" video games, surfing pr0n, and "stealing" copyrighted content (not that any of these are not worthy endeavors in themselves ;) ). One of the best ways to ensure the evaluation and production of digital media is to have them studied in an academic context, and only a tenured professoriat can make that happen in ways that matter academically.
At present, digital media are often marginalized as low-brow. Video-games are often blamed for encouraging mindless violence, the web is blamed for shortening attention spans, and security-checking is vilified as terrorism, email is the font of spam, and reverse-engineering is called breaking copyright. This is the public understanding of digital media.
Specialized software and digital research being done at the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanites is at present abstract and does little to affect the thinking of the unwashed masses of undergraduates, let alone the public at large. But this kind of work is important because it influences the scholars who drive the field, and their work goes largely unnoticed by the established disciplines that might most benefit from them. On the other hand publicly-accessible texts are in many ways the "content" the web has been looking for (as demonstrated by usage), but recognition of such projects is still limited to circles of elite users. This must change, and a cohort of professors teaching students can help bring about that change.
Creating an established body of scholars able to use computers in ways that help normal people understand how Art and Architecture, Modern Languages and Film shape the world in which we live--this will further the widescale acceptance of digital media as worthile and noble ones.
It is important that people see digital media as more than video-games and surfing the web. Devising a body of standards by which digital media can be evaluated in the context of tenure review (limited though that context might be) will help.
The need for a set of standards to review and assign value to the digital work of humanities scholars is crucial to the culture of computing.
The question is did *YOU* read the article?
To quote:
and a little later
This chip is PowerPC all the way.
Sure, on one level it's funny, but I think grytpype's post has been mis-moderated; the comment is "insightful," a window into the pathological psychologies of spammers who want your click.
msq
Sorry. The link for "halitosis" in my previous post is wrong. The correct link for"halitosis" is right here.
(For ease of reference, here's the link for "Listerine".)msq
According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word "halitosis" was first used in 1874, while the word "Listerine" was first used in 1880.
Now, I'm right there with the most paranoid of conspiracy theorists, but I still don't believe time-travel has (same as ever will be) been invented.
Maybe Listerine was invented to cure halitosis?
msq
I suppose the page-widening effect has its promoters and vindicators, but it is an effect only for IE (and only on Windows to boot).
Such page-widening "complaints" are not about the code thrown out by servers, but are complaints about the rendering engines of specific browsers.
Why don't you fix your browser and get over yourself?
The original article quotes Poole as saying that the new movie is "[...]all CGI. It's got no heart."
I had no idea Peter Parker was a web developer. Well look here, Poole, we web builders do have hearts. At least our bodies don't look like rubber.
Oh, that's CG...
OK, that's what I get for taking myself so seriously.
But you weren't so clear about the nature of your threat in your original post (which I'm still not sure gets you off the hook). Maybe your English teacher has a point?
msqWhat part of
include an evaluation of our mores about the representation of violence (imagined and actual), the role of parenting, the authority of the state, the effect of hazing, etc.
don't you understand?
Why do you insist on simple solutions? What's wrong with legislation and responsible parenting?
Does your daughter have friends? Does she ever sleep over?
Her friend's parents are gone or permissive and she plays Quake for hours. She gets intoxicated and follows the imperatives of her hormones.
We don't need laws; we only need isolationist philosophy where we can't imagine that children are raised in a culture that contains millions of others. Nope, no culture here, just me and the nuclear family.
Repeal all laws now. I'm her daddy and I am enough.