The DMCA truly is a bad law, and should be repealed. It doesn't enforce EULA's but it does enforce honerous copy protection measures, and creates an eternal sort of patent like protection, without any meaningful checks or balances. Anything nasty Microsoft manages to do with Palladium will just underscore how bad the DMCA is.
Absolutely. The DMCA is something that never ever should have been passed, and is an example of what can happen if tech people don't keep their eyes and ears open. I think it was a wake-up call to that effect, and makes us realize that Palladium needs to be fought against, and fought hard. Don't let the market decide, help the market decide. I think people have the right idea that we need to educate ourselves, and educate others. Like I said:
Our duties as the technically literate is to make sure that things like Palladium do not happen. The (potential) cost far outweighs the (potential) benefits.
We need to do whatever it takes to prevent things like this from getting off the ground. "The market" needs to have a bigger voice up front, especially when it comes to someone like Microsoft who has the power to essentially disregard what the market thinks. It needs to be prevented from happening, rather than let it get created and then rally against it.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware of the DMCA, and won't care about it until it affects them personally, and in a significant way. By then, it may be too late.
This isn't where the fight should be. Instead, we should be avoiding the products of the companies that would use such technology for purposes of controlling what we can do with what we own.
Sorry, you don't own anything anymore, you license it.
While I agree with you in principle, I know that it won't work. Old saying - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The average person, which BTW outnumbers the "in-the-know" crowd by about a million to 1, will not care. If the only thing that Dell sold was Palladium computers, the public would buy them. They won't go out of their way to avoid it, they will fork over their cash because as far as they are concerned, it isn't a big deal.
Our duties as the technically literate is to make sure that things like Palladium do not happen. The (potential) cost far outweighs the (potential) benefits.
I don't know the scientific explanation, but FIRE MADE IT GOOD.
Lots of accidents have created great things, and a lot of concentrated effort has produced nothing worthwhile. Viagra wasn't an accident per se, but it was created for a different purpose than it is used today. The Slinky, Post-its, etc. Things like this happen a lot, and I am sure there is a website out there that compiles just this type of thing. If there were only a search engine I could use to find it...
To put 5 years into perspective
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> At that rate, the company has at most five years to live. (from the article)
No one can tell what's going to happen in this arena. You've got "only" five years, so you are dead. That sounds too premature. Anything can happen in five years in IT industry. As the author claims, Sun might be gone; on the other hand, Sun might be ruling the world by then.
Amen. To put this in perspective, 5 years ago the dot-com boom was just getting off the ground. If you think you can predict *THIS* industry, I have some stock options I would like to sell you.
As I understand it, MSN served a stylesheet that aligned elements 34pts over because Opera was broken. Opera v6 that is.
Well, you understand it wrong. Yes, the page sent to Opera7 renders fine in Opera6 - but the page sent to MSIE6 renders fine in Opera6 and Opera7. So why the special Opera style sheet? It doesn't require one.
So what was wrong is MSN's version checking code, not some grand campaign against Opera. In fact, the very fact that this alternative stylesheet existed shows that Microsoft had put in extra work and tried to provide Opera users with a usable page. Who here thinks their incentive to do that has been increased by this move?
Yes, they put extra work into something that they didn't need to do, and the result made their website render poorly in Opera7. You hit it right on the head. Kudos to Opera for not taking it lying down.
Instead of all the MS bashing, if you want to advocate linux in your company, you should think out what you are going to say before approaching management. Think about how you can use linux and open source software to replace existing infrastructure such as groupware, development tools, network file/print services and network management.
This is true. My boss is very anti-Open Source. That is, until he needs it, then he is asking me about how to implement these tools. "You have a Linux machine, don't you?". But he is very afraid of it.
We have to go through this audit for MSSQL licenses, and it is a real PITA. So I mentioned to him that it is too bad that MS doesn't just let us use however many we need, since we are using MSSQL to deliver products to customers who buy their product. I said that we are helping MS by using MSSQL in our product, they should want to make our delivery of their server as easy as possible. He said "That may have been true before they were a monopoly, but now we need them more than they need us."
While what he said is true on a business sense, he wouldn't even agree on a personal level that it was stupid. That's the way it is. They are the best, they got there by being the best, we have to accept that. If we don't follow their rules, we are breaking the law. He tried to argue that if I buy a car, I can turn around and sell that car only once. I can't sell it multiple times, so I shouldn't be able to install software multiple times without buying a licenense. Of course, I pointed out to him that you cannot resell the "MS car", and he disagreed. He said he could sell his personal copy of Windows that he bought. I pointed out that he could sell it (if intact with manuals and original CD) but that the person he sold it to couldn't sell it. If you buy a used car, you can turn around and sell it if you want. The argument was lost on him, and he turned the discussion back to the license audit, and what we needed to do.
I hope I made him think at least a little bit. I am always looking for Open Source ways of improving things around here, and if he would allow me to do that, I think we could actually make some progress. If he sees the benefit, he will accept it, but it will be tough to make him see past his blinders.
Are we talking about the same Willie Horton? I was thinking it was the guy who was in prison for murder, was let out on weekend furloughs, and took off on one of those weekends and beat/killed a couple. Sorry, I don't have time to look it up, I am just going off of memory here.
If his intention was to simply get people interested in the subject at hand, he would have been more objective. However he's clearly trying to sway people to his point as well, and being dishonest to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree, people are ignorant enough without being deliberately misled.
Yes, we can agree on that. Sure, he gave his point of view on the facts, and did some creative editing. But I thought he did say that they did a background check on him to get that gun. Anyway, I think the message of the movie is what is important here, and even though things may not be crystal clear to the viewer, it gets them thinking about it and that is a good thing. With Moore's slant on things, I think it is good that he didn't come to any hard conclusions in the movie. How often do movies generate any conversation aside from "that was good - did you see that part when..."
In case I haven't conveyed this yet, I love debating; just about any topic too! I'm not always right, but my arguments are based on facts that I took the time to research. So forgive me when a person in a position of authority (and unfortunately, in this country, Hollywood types DO enjoy such a position) deliberatly try to misinform people for the sake of getting attention.
The movie had many good qualities apart from the misinformation. I would rather discuss topics that don't have cold hard facts. After all, facts don't need to really be debated. I generally don't like debating, I would rather discuss things. I have my opinions, and nobody is going to change them except me. I don't like it when people try to change it for me, as usually happens in debates. Some things I am so sure about that debating them does no good in my eyes, and I don't feel comfortble trying to convince people to change their ideas either. Not that I am not open to seeing things in a different way, or even changing my mind, but it is up to me to do it.
OK, enough of this. I don't think having productive discussions is the purpose of/.:-)
I think the whole "absurd patents" thing is a game of chicken. There are obviously people/companies out there who can prove prior art to many of the ridiculous patents out there. But why? If someone would actually start earning money from these patents, either through licensing or via lawsuits, then someone whips out their prior art, says "AH-HA!" and runs away laughing with all the money.
So unless someone is making money off these patents, nobody cares.
There is a big difference between putting a spin on a fact (which is what most pundits do), and making them up from pure fiction. His "Willie Horton released. Then kills again" line was far more than a distortion of the truth. It was simply false.
I don't remember this line specifically, but why is this false? Because he wasn't technically "released"?
Many of the reviews of Moore's movie are right on, both the good and the bad ones. He does present his views through the movie, he does slant the facts, but as you pointed out so does everyone. "The Facts" really depend on how you look at them, and if you think differently then you are only looking at them from your perspective.
What I find sad is that so many people are stuck on picking apart the details of the movie instead of trying to figure out solutions. People complain "Moore doesn't offer any solutions", but that is exactly what I liked about it. He left it up to me (and you) to think about what he presented, talk about it, and come to our own conclusions. That's OK. If you think he was way off on something, then maybe you will discuss it with someone who sees it differently.
Did he walk into a bank in Michigan (not Texas) and walk out with a gun an hour later? Or was he given a voucher and had to go to a gun shop to claim it? If you concentrate on that specific point, which he may have embellished to drive the point home, then you are missing it! What about the fact that banks are giving away guns with bank accounts?! The nitty gritty details don't matter, really.
It is not a pure documentary, but it isn't pure fiction either. It is satire, but not pure satire. I don't care if it is called a documentary for categorizing purposes. I think instead of focusing on the individual lines or points of the movie, it is worthwhile to think about and discuss the theme of the movie. About the Media Machine in this country, about fear, about guns, about politics. At least he presented it in an interesting format. Some of it was over the top, or incorrect, or his slant on things, but that is OK. What is wrong with that? If it gets people interested in the TOPIC, then I think it isn't all bad.
You don't give us much credit. I'd say that most of the people that read this site (who, generally speaking, are a of the same target audience of Moore's ranting) give a shit about much more important things. What does disappoint me, though, is how many supposedly intelligent people actually buy into most, if not all, of what Moore says.
Nope, I don't give the American Public much credit, they have continued to lose my respect over the last 10 years. The tech crowd isn't like the American Public, we do care about things that we feel are important. But how many geeks do you know that talk about gun control/violence/poverty/etc? It is good for them to talk about this stuff too.
I bought into the movie hook, line, and sinker. For a couple of weeks. But that got me talking about it. I have learned a little more about Moore and his tactics (I didn't see Roger and Me), I realized that he does distort things. But I am talking about the topics raised, instead of talking about his movie techniques. THAT might do some good.
That's considered value-added incentive for the consumer. Hell, even major Linux distributions bundle browserS, media playerS and office productivity suiteS. And I am GLAD that such apps are included, therefore I don't need to buy a copy or download a free one.
Please note the letters in bold. Linux distros don't just include their own products. And even if they did, Linux distros do not hold a monopoly on the desktop market, they don't have a stranglehold on OEMs, deliberately sabotage competitors products, perform software audits, or change their licensing fees as they see fit. Granted, bundling in apps with an OS is a good thing for the public, but not in combination with the big picture.
Michael Moore has made a career of distorting the facts and peddaling wild conspiracy theories as fact. He routinely makes up facts to support his rantings when the truth cannot.
Yes, you are right. Instead, we should believe people whose careers are built around not distorting the facts. Just show me ONE.
So are you saying that the gun-death statistics he presented in the movie are wrong? The people interviewed in the movie were coached? By all means, give some examples instead of making sweeping statements.
If you truly believe Michael Moore is a visionary, I challenge you to defend that assertion.
What, you get to make an assertion for me, then challenge me to defend it? How does that work? I used my own made-up word (impactful) to say that this film really made me think about things, still to this day. No other movie I have seen has done that. He deserves credit for making this film, if anything for bringing to topic to the American public's attention. Maybe then people will talk about something besides who is dating who in Hollywood, stupid reality TV shows, and sports.
I find it surprising that you dismiss all possible alternative explanations as simply being hidden glory-seeking.
For a counter-example to your argument, I write publicly rather than privarely so that if a friend wants to understand me better but is too shy to ask or doesn't know to ask, they can go browse. It seems like a valid enough reason to me, and wholly distinct from the general glory-seeking you claim is universal.
I think you missed my point, or maybe I veered off. I was arguing that someone who writes in a public journal and says "I write it only for me and me alone" is fooling themselves. I don't understand the desire to just write down my thoughts on a regular basis (journal) and have others read them. But if you want to do it, knock yourself out. But at least say "hey, I want to share my thoughts with the world".
I think for the most part people who write in public journals are seeking any kind of attention they can get. (naturally, there will be exceptions) But I think the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely low when it comes to online journals.
So some people will say "hey, you are commenting in a blog right now, idiot!". I think there are two distinctions to be made. On sites like this, people comment on topics. I like it, I get to hear other people's opinions on specific things that interest me, and that I think deserve discussing. Online journals, where people just blather on about nothing absolutely bore me. I still don't believe that people write in publicly accessible journals just for themselves. Like you said, you want others to be able to read it if they want.
Not true. I blog, because I like being able to open up and clarify my thoughts. I have comments disabled - frankly, I don't give a large rat's patootie who reads my blog, if anybody at all besides me does. It's a journal, fer cryin' out loud. You don't write in a journal with the expectation that millions of people are going to read it and suddenly like you.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you wanted to do that, you could easily write in a private journal, in a word processor, in one of the various free journal programs, you could set up your own with password protection, in txt files, or even on good ol' paper. The fact that you chose to do so in a PUBLICLY READABLE journal means that you want people to read it. Otherwise, you would write it in private.
Look, I don't care. To me, it is stupid, but who am I? You can do whatever you want. But why not admit that you want people to read it? At least be honest about it. If it was truly for you, you would keep it to yourself. You are choosing to make it publicly readable for a reason.
You are simply incorrect. Without a licence on the code, normal copyright applies as default.
OK, I think I might be able to concede this point. But I think we are talking about two different things:
I am saying that the GPL is a restrictive license, which it is. It DOES place some restrictions on the software. You are saying that the GPL removes restrictions that are there by default. These are two different things really. I just wanted to point out that the GPL doesn't mean that the software is totally Free. If you apply the GPL to something you create, there ARE restrictions on it. Now I personally think that those restrictions are a good thing. Sometimes people get caught up in their "GPL! GPL!" chant and forget that it doesn't make the software totally Free. More free than without it, probably, but not totally Free.
I don't care WHO reads my journal. My journal is basically for an audience of one...ME. As journals should be. If you like what you read, fine, enjoy. If you don't, you don't.
Sorry, but I call BS. If you were only writing a journal for you and you alone, you would not have it on the internet. You want positive responses to your thoughts, otherwise you would keep them private. Which is fine, I don't care, you can do what you want. But don't pretend that you are only writing for yourself when you publish it to the world.
That is my opinion in a general sense. I think people should be able to keep online journals, I wouldn't take that away from them. But on a more personal note, I think publishing journals is kind of dumb, because for the most part the average person has nothing interesting to say. And yes, you probably fall in that category, although most bloggers wouldn't think I am referring to them. I have known people (actual people, not virtual) who do the journal thing online, and they are the kind of people who generally like to talk a lot about nothing interesting. They throw around ideas without thought, pretend to have some kind of interesting writing style, and are pretty annoying. They talk simply for the sake of talking, be it online or in person. The online journal just gives them a worldwide audience to annoy. I know this will offend all you "bloggers" out there, and I do realize that I am posting comments on Slashdot. But this is in relation to a topic, not just me rambling about what I had for breakfast or what I think a really cool invention would be.
There's no way Bowling for Columbine is a great Documentary.... a documentary should not lie, twist truths, or mislead the viewer which Michael Moore often does
I actually agree with this, but it was nominated for best documentary. I think it should win something. I guess you could say it was filmed in the documentary style, with a slant on opinion. I just think that it was very powerful and brought up an interesting topic that deserves to be discussed amongst Americans. He packed so much information into the movie that I really need to see it again to digest it all. I think that there are few movies that people NEED to see, and this is one of them. Even if you come out of it thinking he is a lying bastard, it is worth seeing.
First off, I don't think this was a troll post, you make some good comments. Allow me to rebut...
i thought just the opposite. the video footage of columbine itself was gripping, of course, but the interviews and other parts of the movie were haphazardly strung together. moore made no meaningful points about anything.
Might have been a little haphazard, but it kept me interested. One of the big critisizms of the film was that he didn't seem to have a clear point or opinion. I think that was the beauty of it - it is left up to the viewer to DISCUSS it later. Why should he present it in a nice, neat package? Because that is what we are used to? I think some very powerful points were made in the movie.
the tirade against k-mart was hypocritical; he forced an innocent company's hand by leveraging the wrath of the media, and in the same breath talked about how the media was always picking sides with its stories and creating an atmosphere of fear.
Exactly! I say that is a pretty strong point about the power of the media in this country.
he gets a kick out of putting celebrities on the spot, making them want to end the interview, and then stands there looking meaningful as they drive away (dick clark) or shoo him out (heston). the scene of moore with his "won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!" victim picture and leaving it on heston's doorstep was utterly without value. that sort of "poignancy" appeals only to bleeding-hearts who see the issues only as far as the tears in their eyes.
I thought the placing of the picture on the ground was a little too "bleeding heart". I had to roll my eyes a little at that point. But you have to look at the bigger scene with those celebrities. Didn't you find the question to Heston about why he kept a loaded gun in his house relevant? And he didn't accept the "because I have a right to" answer, he pressed on and said "Yes, of course you do, I don't argue with that - but WHY do you keep one in your house?".
OK, so the movie isn't pure documentary, I'll buy that. But look at what this movie does, it doesn't pre-package everything so there are no questions. It makes you THINK and TALK about the topics he brings up. Holy guacamole, what a concept! Come on, would you rather sit around and drink a few beers with friends talking about Lord of the Rings, or some of the topics that Moorer brought up in this movie? And the interview with Marilyn Manson was absolutely phenominal.
Please, read what I wrote. I do understand, but you do not. Jeez, I guess I have to point it out...
With the GPL permission is granted to anyone to use the software with those
restrictions spelled out in the agreement. Freedoms. You mean freedoms, not restrictions. (/sarcasm)
People sometimes forget that the GPL is a restrictive license. Less restrictive that a proprietary license, but restrictive nonetheless.
1. Note the "sarcasm tag"
2. If there was no GPL on the code, you would be able to do less with the code than the GPL allows you to do.
Not true. What if it was released as public domain? YOU said if there was no GPL on the code. That means anything non-GPL.
3. Applying the GPL to a work removes restrictions.
Wrong again. You are ASSuming that those restrictions are in place by default. They are not.
4. For example, without the GPL, you would have zero rights to copy it.
Wrong yet again. You are only bound by the license applied to it. You are ASSuming again that by default it has a restrictive license.
Read again the last sentence I wrote - it is not as restrictive as a proprietary (or some other) license, but it DOES place restrictions on the code. Why do people get all pissy about this? I am stating the facts, and am not saying whether it is bad or good. Stop being so frigging defensive, stop waving whatever flag you have been led to believe you should be waving, and look at things objectively. Restrictions are not always bad. I LIKE the restrictions that are placed on GPL code, and they are in there for a reason. Don't fly off the handle thinking that restrictions are always bad.
Bowling for Columbine, hands down, the best FILM of the year, let alone the best documentary. Too bad it couldn't have been nominated for both, but I don't see how it cannot win best documentary. Absolutely one of the most impactful things I have ever viewed. I saw it when it came out, and I really want to see it again. Even if you disagree with some of the views that it presents, you need to see it.
Re:Dude, you're getting a cell
on
NES PC
·
· Score: 1
This is what happens when the Dell kid smokes pot!!
Suing the Mono project when they're submitting.Net to the EMCA, etc. would be bad publicity. It would definitely make people reconsider developing for.Net.
Yeah, cause Microsoft probably doesn't have any lawyers or PR people.
Honestly, if I had to venture a guess, I would say that Microsoft doesn't care. People who develop on Microsoft products don't care. They don't develop on.Net because MS is a great and fair company, they do it because they have the biggest market share, and because developing on.Net is easy. What would happen if MS did sue? There would be a backlash against MS? Hah. The average tech person would say "Those Open Source people, stealing ideas again. Why can't they ever develop any ideas on their own?" They don't sue on moral reasons, they sue to financially wipe out whoever they wish to take to court. With a patent, they would have a basis for a lawsuit.
Yeah, well he's playing Montoya, so even if he survived the crash he'd just blow up the engine half-way through the race.;)
Nah, he would be on the pole with the fastest qualifying time, lose the lead in the first corner to Schumie, make an incredibly dangerous and breathtaking pass to regain the lead a few laps later, THEN blow the engine.
hat can make a difference. If a company is monitoring and blocks certain web sites, say p0rn, they are rightly to do so. I can not see how that can have a negative impact on a workplace. I can also understand if a company wants to block activity of music share programs, I believe, they are rightly to do so. You are not paying for the bandwidth, they are.
Hey, I admit it, I do a ton of stuff online from work: banking, shopping, reading news sites. Doing "errands" online keeps me here instead of going out to do them, which people do. Reading news is no different than reading the paper on a break, which people do. So I check Slashdot occasionally. I don't go outside every 30 minutes to have a 10 minute cigarette either.
I don't need to "surf", I haven't really randomly done that for about 5 years. I use the net as a tool. I don't look at pr0n at work either. They do have filters set up to block questionable pages. But the problem is that they simply subscribe to a service that gives them a list of sites to block. One guy I know was looking into buying furniture or something, and a major department store's website was blocked. Some legit tech sites are blocked too, I have tried to go there to read some articles. Things like ifilm.com are not blocked, but The Onion is.
Which one is a bigger waste of time/bandwidth?
The problem with filtering is that it is that it isn't perfect. If I had full access, I wouldn't violate company policy simply because I value my job. Too bad that this doesn't apply to everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. The DMCA is something that never ever should have been passed, and is an example of what can happen if tech people don't keep their eyes and ears open. I think it was a wake-up call to that effect, and makes us realize that Palladium needs to be fought against, and fought hard. Don't let the market decide, help the market decide. I think people have the right idea that we need to educate ourselves, and educate others. Like I said:
We need to do whatever it takes to prevent things like this from getting off the ground. "The market" needs to have a bigger voice up front, especially when it comes to someone like Microsoft who has the power to essentially disregard what the market thinks. It needs to be prevented from happening, rather than let it get created and then rally against it.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware of the DMCA, and won't care about it until it affects them personally, and in a significant way. By then, it may be too late.
Sorry, you don't own anything anymore, you license it.
While I agree with you in principle, I know that it won't work. Old saying - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The average person, which BTW outnumbers the "in-the-know" crowd by about a million to 1, will not care. If the only thing that Dell sold was Palladium computers, the public would buy them. They won't go out of their way to avoid it, they will fork over their cash because as far as they are concerned, it isn't a big deal.
Our duties as the technically literate is to make sure that things like Palladium do not happen. The (potential) cost far outweighs the (potential) benefits.
Lots of accidents have created great things, and a lot of concentrated effort has produced nothing worthwhile. Viagra wasn't an accident per se, but it was created for a different purpose than it is used today. The Slinky, Post-its, etc. Things like this happen a lot, and I am sure there is a website out there that compiles just this type of thing. If there were only a search engine I could use to find it...
There is this book.
No one can tell what's going to happen in this arena. You've got "only" five years, so you are dead. That sounds too premature. Anything can happen in five years in IT industry. As the author claims, Sun might be gone; on the other hand, Sun might be ruling the world by then.
Amen. To put this in perspective, 5 years ago the dot-com boom was just getting off the ground. If you think you can predict *THIS* industry, I have some stock options I would like to sell you.
Well, you understand it wrong. Yes, the page sent to Opera7 renders fine in Opera6 - but the page sent to MSIE6 renders fine in Opera6 and Opera7. So why the special Opera style sheet? It doesn't require one.
So what was wrong is MSN's version checking code, not some grand campaign against Opera. In fact, the very fact that this alternative stylesheet existed shows that Microsoft had put in extra work and tried to provide Opera users with a usable page. Who here thinks their incentive to do that has been increased by this move?
Yes, they put extra work into something that they didn't need to do, and the result made their website render poorly in Opera7. You hit it right on the head. Kudos to Opera for not taking it lying down.
This is true. My boss is very anti-Open Source. That is, until he needs it, then he is asking me about how to implement these tools. "You have a Linux machine, don't you?". But he is very afraid of it.
We have to go through this audit for MSSQL licenses, and it is a real PITA. So I mentioned to him that it is too bad that MS doesn't just let us use however many we need, since we are using MSSQL to deliver products to customers who buy their product. I said that we are helping MS by using MSSQL in our product, they should want to make our delivery of their server as easy as possible. He said "That may have been true before they were a monopoly, but now we need them more than they need us."
While what he said is true on a business sense, he wouldn't even agree on a personal level that it was stupid. That's the way it is. They are the best, they got there by being the best, we have to accept that. If we don't follow their rules, we are breaking the law. He tried to argue that if I buy a car, I can turn around and sell that car only once. I can't sell it multiple times, so I shouldn't be able to install software multiple times without buying a licenense. Of course, I pointed out to him that you cannot resell the "MS car", and he disagreed. He said he could sell his personal copy of Windows that he bought. I pointed out that he could sell it (if intact with manuals and original CD) but that the person he sold it to couldn't sell it. If you buy a used car, you can turn around and sell it if you want. The argument was lost on him, and he turned the discussion back to the license audit, and what we needed to do.
I hope I made him think at least a little bit. I am always looking for Open Source ways of improving things around here, and if he would allow me to do that, I think we could actually make some progress. If he sees the benefit, he will accept it, but it will be tough to make him see past his blinders.
Are we talking about the same Willie Horton? I was thinking it was the guy who was in prison for murder, was let out on weekend furloughs, and took off on one of those weekends and beat/killed a couple. Sorry, I don't have time to look it up, I am just going off of memory here.
If his intention was to simply get people interested in the subject at hand, he would have been more objective. However he's clearly trying to sway people to his point as well, and being dishonest to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree, people are ignorant enough without being deliberately misled.
Yes, we can agree on that. Sure, he gave his point of view on the facts, and did some creative editing. But I thought he did say that they did a background check on him to get that gun. Anyway, I think the message of the movie is what is important here, and even though things may not be crystal clear to the viewer, it gets them thinking about it and that is a good thing. With Moore's slant on things, I think it is good that he didn't come to any hard conclusions in the movie. How often do movies generate any conversation aside from "that was good - did you see that part when..."
In case I haven't conveyed this yet, I love debating; just about any topic too! I'm not always right, but my arguments are based on facts that I took the time to research. So forgive me when a person in a position of authority (and unfortunately, in this country, Hollywood types DO enjoy such a position) deliberatly try to misinform people for the sake of getting attention.
The movie had many good qualities apart from the misinformation. I would rather discuss topics that don't have cold hard facts. After all, facts don't need to really be debated. I generally don't like debating, I would rather discuss things. I have my opinions, and nobody is going to change them except me. I don't like it when people try to change it for me, as usually happens in debates. Some things I am so sure about that debating them does no good in my eyes, and I don't feel comfortble trying to convince people to change their ideas either. Not that I am not open to seeing things in a different way, or even changing my mind, but it is up to me to do it.
OK, enough of this. I don't think having productive discussions is the purpose of /. :-)
So unless someone is making money off these patents, nobody cares.
I don't remember this line specifically, but why is this false? Because he wasn't technically "released"?
Many of the reviews of Moore's movie are right on, both the good and the bad ones. He does present his views through the movie, he does slant the facts, but as you pointed out so does everyone. "The Facts" really depend on how you look at them, and if you think differently then you are only looking at them from your perspective.
What I find sad is that so many people are stuck on picking apart the details of the movie instead of trying to figure out solutions. People complain "Moore doesn't offer any solutions", but that is exactly what I liked about it. He left it up to me (and you) to think about what he presented, talk about it, and come to our own conclusions. That's OK. If you think he was way off on something, then maybe you will discuss it with someone who sees it differently.
Did he walk into a bank in Michigan (not Texas) and walk out with a gun an hour later? Or was he given a voucher and had to go to a gun shop to claim it? If you concentrate on that specific point, which he may have embellished to drive the point home, then you are missing it! What about the fact that banks are giving away guns with bank accounts?! The nitty gritty details don't matter, really.
It is not a pure documentary, but it isn't pure fiction either. It is satire, but not pure satire. I don't care if it is called a documentary for categorizing purposes. I think instead of focusing on the individual lines or points of the movie, it is worthwhile to think about and discuss the theme of the movie. About the Media Machine in this country, about fear, about guns, about politics. At least he presented it in an interesting format. Some of it was over the top, or incorrect, or his slant on things, but that is OK. What is wrong with that? If it gets people interested in the TOPIC, then I think it isn't all bad.
You don't give us much credit. I'd say that most of the people that read this site (who, generally speaking, are a of the same target audience of Moore's ranting) give a shit about much more important things. What does disappoint me, though, is how many supposedly intelligent people actually buy into most, if not all, of what Moore says.
Nope, I don't give the American Public much credit, they have continued to lose my respect over the last 10 years. The tech crowd isn't like the American Public, we do care about things that we feel are important. But how many geeks do you know that talk about gun control/violence/poverty/etc? It is good for them to talk about this stuff too.
I bought into the movie hook, line, and sinker. For a couple of weeks. But that got me talking about it. I have learned a little more about Moore and his tactics (I didn't see Roger and Me), I realized that he does distort things. But I am talking about the topics raised, instead of talking about his movie techniques. THAT might do some good.
Please note the letters in bold. Linux distros don't just include their own products. And even if they did, Linux distros do not hold a monopoly on the desktop market, they don't have a stranglehold on OEMs, deliberately sabotage competitors products, perform software audits, or change their licensing fees as they see fit. Granted, bundling in apps with an OS is a good thing for the public, but not in combination with the big picture.
Yes, you are right. Instead, we should believe people whose careers are built around not distorting the facts. Just show me ONE.
So are you saying that the gun-death statistics he presented in the movie are wrong? The people interviewed in the movie were coached? By all means, give some examples instead of making sweeping statements.
If you truly believe Michael Moore is a visionary, I challenge you to defend that assertion.
What, you get to make an assertion for me, then challenge me to defend it? How does that work?
I used my own made-up word (impactful) to say that this film really made me think about things, still to this day. No other movie I have seen has done that. He deserves credit for making this film, if anything for bringing to topic to the American public's attention. Maybe then people will talk about something besides who is dating who in Hollywood, stupid reality TV shows, and sports.
I think you missed my point, or maybe I veered off. I was arguing that someone who writes in a public journal and says "I write it only for me and me alone" is fooling themselves. I don't understand the desire to just write down my thoughts on a regular basis (journal) and have others read them. But if you want to do it, knock yourself out. But at least say "hey, I want to share my thoughts with the world".
I think for the most part people who write in public journals are seeking any kind of attention they can get. (naturally, there will be exceptions) But I think the signal-to-noise ratio is extremely low when it comes to online journals.
So some people will say "hey, you are commenting in a blog right now, idiot!". I think there are two distinctions to be made. On sites like this, people comment on topics. I like it, I get to hear other people's opinions on specific things that interest me, and that I think deserve discussing. Online journals, where people just blather on about nothing absolutely bore me. I still don't believe that people write in publicly accessible journals just for themselves. Like you said, you want others to be able to read it if they want.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you wanted to do that, you could easily write in a private journal, in a word processor, in one of the various free journal programs, you could set up your own with password protection, in txt files, or even on good ol' paper. The fact that you chose to do so in a PUBLICLY READABLE journal means that you want people to read it. Otherwise, you would write it in private.
Look, I don't care. To me, it is stupid, but who am I? You can do whatever you want. But why not admit that you want people to read it? At least be honest about it. If it was truly for you, you would keep it to yourself. You are choosing to make it publicly readable for a reason.
OK, I think I might be able to concede this point. But I think we are talking about two different things:
I am saying that the GPL is a restrictive license, which it is. It DOES place some restrictions on the software. You are saying that the GPL removes restrictions that are there by default. These are two different things really. I just wanted to point out that the GPL doesn't mean that the software is totally Free. If you apply the GPL to something you create, there ARE restrictions on it. Now I personally think that those restrictions are a good thing. Sometimes people get caught up in their "GPL! GPL!" chant and forget that it doesn't make the software totally Free. More free than without it, probably, but not totally Free.
Sorry, but I call BS. If you were only writing a journal for you and you alone, you would not have it on the internet. You want positive responses to your thoughts, otherwise you would keep them private. Which is fine, I don't care, you can do what you want. But don't pretend that you are only writing for yourself when you publish it to the world.
That is my opinion in a general sense. I think people should be able to keep online journals, I wouldn't take that away from them. But on a more personal note, I think publishing journals is kind of dumb, because for the most part the average person has nothing interesting to say. And yes, you probably fall in that category, although most bloggers wouldn't think I am referring to them. I have known people (actual people, not virtual) who do the journal thing online, and they are the kind of people who generally like to talk a lot about nothing interesting. They throw around ideas without thought, pretend to have some kind of interesting writing style, and are pretty annoying. They talk simply for the sake of talking, be it online or in person. The online journal just gives them a worldwide audience to annoy. I know this will offend all you "bloggers" out there, and I do realize that I am posting comments on Slashdot. But this is in relation to a topic, not just me rambling about what I had for breakfast or what I think a really cool invention would be.
I actually agree with this, but it was nominated for best documentary. I think it should win something. I guess you could say it was filmed in the documentary style, with a slant on opinion. I just think that it was very powerful and brought up an interesting topic that deserves to be discussed amongst Americans. He packed so much information into the movie that I really need to see it again to digest it all. I think that there are few movies that people NEED to see, and this is one of them. Even if you come out of it thinking he is a lying bastard, it is worth seeing.
i thought just the opposite. the video footage of columbine itself was gripping, of course, but the interviews and other parts of the movie were haphazardly strung together. moore made no meaningful points about anything.
Might have been a little haphazard, but it kept me interested. One of the big critisizms of the film was that he didn't seem to have a clear point or opinion. I think that was the beauty of it - it is left up to the viewer to DISCUSS it later. Why should he present it in a nice, neat package? Because that is what we are used to? I think some very powerful points were made in the movie.
the tirade against k-mart was hypocritical; he forced an innocent company's hand by leveraging the wrath of the media, and in the same breath talked about how the media was always picking sides with its stories and creating an atmosphere of fear.
Exactly! I say that is a pretty strong point about the power of the media in this country. he gets a kick out of putting celebrities on the spot, making them want to end the interview, and then stands there looking meaningful as they drive away (dick clark) or shoo him out (heston). the scene of moore with his "won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!" victim picture and leaving it on heston's doorstep was utterly without value. that sort of "poignancy" appeals only to bleeding-hearts who see the issues only as far as the tears in their eyes.
I thought the placing of the picture on the ground was a little too "bleeding heart". I had to roll my eyes a little at that point. But you have to look at the bigger scene with those celebrities. Didn't you find the question to Heston about why he kept a loaded gun in his house relevant? And he didn't accept the "because I have a right to" answer, he pressed on and said "Yes, of course you do, I don't argue with that - but WHY do you keep one in your house?".
OK, so the movie isn't pure documentary, I'll buy that. But look at what this movie does, it doesn't pre-package everything so there are no questions. It makes you THINK and TALK about the topics he brings up. Holy guacamole, what a concept! Come on, would you rather sit around and drink a few beers with friends talking about Lord of the Rings, or some of the topics that Moorer brought up in this movie? And the interview with Marilyn Manson was absolutely phenominal.
Please, read what I wrote. I do understand, but you do not. Jeez, I guess I have to point it out...
1. Note the "sarcasm tag"
2. If there was no GPL on the code, you would be able to do less with the code than the GPL allows you to do.
Not true. What if it was released as public domain? YOU said if there was no GPL on the code. That means anything non-GPL.
3. Applying the GPL to a work removes restrictions.
Wrong again. You are ASSuming that those restrictions are in place by default. They are not.
4. For example, without the GPL, you would have zero rights to copy it.
Wrong yet again. You are only bound by the license applied to it. You are ASSuming again that by default it has a restrictive license.
Read again the last sentence I wrote - it is not as restrictive as a proprietary (or some other) license, but it DOES place restrictions on the code. Why do people get all pissy about this? I am stating the facts, and am not saying whether it is bad or good. Stop being so frigging defensive, stop waving whatever flag you have been led to believe you should be waving, and look at things objectively. Restrictions are not always bad. I LIKE the restrictions that are placed on GPL code, and they are in there for a reason. Don't fly off the handle thinking that restrictions are always bad.
Bowling for Columbine, hands down, the best FILM of the year, let alone the best documentary. Too bad it couldn't have been nominated for both, but I don't see how it cannot win best documentary. Absolutely one of the most impactful things I have ever viewed. I saw it when it came out, and I really want to see it again. Even if you disagree with some of the views that it presents, you need to see it.
You forgot the obligatory link to the story.
Yeah, cause Microsoft probably doesn't have any lawyers or PR people.
Honestly, if I had to venture a guess, I would say that Microsoft doesn't care. People who develop on Microsoft products don't care. They don't develop on .Net because MS is a great and fair company, they do it because they have the biggest market share, and because developing on .Net is easy. What would happen if MS did sue? There would be a backlash against MS? Hah. The average tech person would say "Those Open Source people, stealing ideas again. Why can't they ever develop any ideas on their own?" They don't sue on moral reasons, they sue to financially wipe out whoever they wish to take to court. With a patent, they would have a basis for a lawsuit.
Freedoms. You mean freedoms, not restrictions. (/sarcasm)
People sometimes forget that the GPL is a restrictive license. Less restrictive that a proprietary license, but restrictive nonetheless.
Nah, he would be on the pole with the fastest qualifying time, lose the lead in the first corner to Schumie, make an incredibly dangerous and breathtaking pass to regain the lead a few laps later, THEN blow the engine.
Hey, I admit it, I do a ton of stuff online from work: banking, shopping, reading news sites. Doing "errands" online keeps me here instead of going out to do them, which people do. Reading news is no different than reading the paper on a break, which people do. So I check Slashdot occasionally. I don't go outside every 30 minutes to have a 10 minute cigarette either.
I don't need to "surf", I haven't really randomly done that for about 5 years. I use the net as a tool. I don't look at pr0n at work either. They do have filters set up to block questionable pages. But the problem is that they simply subscribe to a service that gives them a list of sites to block. One guy I know was looking into buying furniture or something, and a major department store's website was blocked. Some legit tech sites are blocked too, I have tried to go there to read some articles. Things like ifilm.com are not blocked, but The Onion is. Which one is a bigger waste of time/bandwidth?
The problem with filtering is that it is that it isn't perfect. If I had full access, I wouldn't violate company policy simply because I value my job. Too bad that this doesn't apply to everyone.