Ok, ok, ok. How many times does it need to be said that it doesn't matter whether or not there's news in 140 different languages or whatever going on out there, if all the news is directed by the same person (or corporation) -- or the same 6 or 10 people or corporations, how different is it going to be from itself? You can translate "Wall Street stocks crash" into 140 different languages and it'll still say the same thing, every time. You can even "translate" it in different ways (such as writing it "Wall Street stocks crash" for the straight news; "Investors burnt in stock header" for the more _Variety_ type crowd, etc. etc.) and it STILL says the same thing. Nothing times nothing is still nothing, folks.
The most compelling argument that he's at least partly wrong is a careful comparison of news broadcasts about, say, the My Lai scandal, and the WTO protests. In the first instance, even major news organs were exposing what was going on. Now all the major news organs are just covering it up by talking about anarchists and whatnot (if there were 1/2 dozen honest anarchists in that whole crowd, I'd be very surprised). Now, they wouldn't even report on something like My Lai, because most news outlets are owned by, or indirectly connected to arms manufacturers.
Don't confuse multiplying outlets with multiplying outlooks.
I am told by someone who was allegedly there during at least one of the times Hubbard made his comment about religion and money, that there was no bet, precisely. Basically, a bunch of SF authors (and Hubbard, who never wrote anything good enough to be dignified with a label much above "sci-fi" [sorry, messy sectarian partisanship there]) were talking about money, in specific, the lousy rates paid by science fiction magazines. I am told that Hubbard replied, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man wanted to make real money, he'd start his own religion." Apparently he decided to do just that.
... no religion would ever give any materials away. Just think! No more door-to-door Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or random evangelicals disturbing our sleep ever again! Also, no more Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, either.
Unfortunately, there's no force on earth that can stop the proliferation of Chick Tracts...
I'm a working writer. I do understand. I just ALSO understand that electronic copies don't cause as much monetary damage as Harlan Ellison thinks (likely because he doesn't use electronic copies of anything). And I'm NOT saying that uploading pirated copies of other artists' works isn't stealing. I'm saying that it isn't the end of the world if someone does it.
And I DO pay money for Harlan Ellison's work. I'd also really like electronic copies for my own personal use (since I already own print copies that I paid for, what's the problem?), such as keyword searching for academic work etc.
And I think your "rape" metaphor is a terrible way of trying to explain this issue -- especially talking to me. Then again, I'm just Interrobang, and there's no way you could know who I really am.
And don't worry about the RIGHTS to your work. These days, copyright is forever. Enforcement is another question. Monetary damages from lack of copyright enforcement from internet use is yet another issue (and, I think, the most important one). What Harlan (and you) don't seem to get is that electronic copies don't really dent the market all that much. After all, what's worse for writers' wallets -- some electronic copies (considering that books are still more portable and easier to use), or the attitudes of publishers that cause things like literary cliqueyness, the disappearance of the "mid-list", or the vicious declining sales numbers/print run cycle?
Yes, he's an award-winning writer. Unfortunately, he does have a habit of getting worked-up and freaking out about things he doesn't know enough about to get freaked out about. I actually rather suspect the ALL CAPS was a result of lousy transcription by the website people.
First of all, Harlan is not an AOL user; he's a NON-user. He's probably used a computer maybe 5 times in his entire life. He still writes using a manual typewriter, AFAIK. So he probably doesn't understand that internet copyright infringement not as big a deal as it sounds...or that downloading isn't precisely theft, because the "original" isn't gone; it's just been duplicated.
Secondly, since he's a non-user, he has no idea how useful a keyword-searchable copy of his work could be (I did my senior undergrad thesis on Harlan Ellison in 1997; I sure could have used it then) -- OR how much of a pain in the @$$ reading off of a screen for long periods of time can be. Or that books still work in bed, in the bathroom, on public transit, out camping, or anywhere else much better than hand-held reader appliances.
So if you think you might have something cogent and (above all) POLITE to say to him about this, write him at:
Please be sure to include your name, address, and phone number in your letter. He prefers to reply, if necessary, by telephone, because it saves time.
I wrote him once, and he called me. We chatted. In person, he's a really nice guy. He just has a nasty public persona, which is why it's so important to be polite. He'll be nice if you be nice. No nasty flame-mail to Uncle Harlan on my account, please, guys. If you are rude to him, he'll just go to town on your @$$...and he's far more nasty at his worst than you could ever hope to be. So be nice, ok?
Interrobang, Ellison Fan since 1988!
PS--The "acronym" thing was just an Ellison joke. He knows what "acronym" means...it's just funnier that way.
If you'd actually bothered to read the article, pb, you might have noticed that she wasn't "down on" Linux at all. No one who's used it that long could really hate it, after all... Still, she's right about a few things.
One: For the average end-user, Linux is way too difficult. Hell, it was really tough for me to get going, and I'm about as far above most people as most of you are above me, in terms of computer know-how. And never mind the dumb users, who can't figure out how to use the "Reply" button, or, when asked questions like "Does it run on Windows or Mac?" say, "I don't know, I don't get into that technical stuff." (Don't laugh. It happened to me. I couldn't make up something that weird.) No one should have to know how many cylinders are in their drive before they can install an(other) OS, but I did. While, I admit, learning more than I cared to know about my hardware was certainly edifying, it was also a fsck of a lot of work.
Two: AFAI'm concerned, the documentation and HOWTOs are all written in Moon Language or some designated alternate. They're certainly not written in terribly comprehensible English (although the ones by Rob Malda are at least funny in places). Most of them suffer from the "COIK" problem (for "Comprehensible Only If Known") -- that is, if you can understand the doc or HOWTO, you don't need to read it. Many of them tell you everything you need to know about the given item -- except the one vital piece of information you need (such as how to open a file or something). I know about technical documentation for end-users! I at least attempt to do it for a living! And some of those docs or HOWTOs should be textbook examples of what not to do.
Plus, of course, judging by the tone of this article, at least some of her griping is hyperbole anyway, so don't get your UNIX bloomers in a knot.
...but it's gone on too long. (Thank you Ogden Nash.)
I totally disagree with this idea. Cell phones will probably always annoy me, especially when wielded by clueless teenagers on crowded streetcars. Wait 'til you get home, you morons! Being free from the ubiquitous cheesy beeping classical music knock-off (or cutesy TV theme song, etc.) ringing, and brainless people's inane conversations for once without fear of legal reprisal from stomping the offending gadget into powder would be nice, as well.
Of course, we all know how this one is going to go (unless the CRTC, in its infinite wisdom actually decides to grow a backbone), so my fond wish of actually obtaining and using a cell phone jammer is more than likely just a moot point.
Ehhhh, shouldn't'a got me started. This is one of my sore points.
Just out of idle curiosity, does anyone else out there see cell phones, pagers, etc. more as leashes and choke chains than anything else (gee, yeah, I want my boss to be able to get hold of me no matter where I am or what time it is--even though he doesn't have to? Sure...)?
No, really. Or, if you don't like that example, substitute _your version of the ugliest celebrity in the world in a really horrible role for them here_. When you read a book, you can make the characters look and sound any way you want them to, avoiding those painful "miscastings," plus (extra bonus!) your imagination gets a workout by having to provide all those little details books don't provide but TV does. Concentration also burns about 120 calories per hour, if I remember correctly, which is another good "workout" reason.
Case in point to my first premise, when I was in University and had to study _Pride and Prejudice_, the only way I was able to even finish the book was by imagining the Monty Pythons in drag (as the Misses Barrett, etc.) performing it. It was a scream that way. No such _Pride and Prejudice_ movie exists, and even John Cleese in a skirt is more fun to look at than Kate Winslet or whomever with her waist corseted down to (gag! retch!) 22 inches.
"Been around the world and found
That only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a TV."
(Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta")
If God longs for a personal relationship with me, why doesn't It return Its phone calls? It's not like I don't have an answering machine, either. I even tried writing letters, e-mailing, and faxing. Ok, so the fax didn't go through... But I tried!
You know, you just try, and try, and TRY to get in touch with someone...
Hmm, by that criterion, God is James Kennedy from Cleveland.
Sorry, having done both (install Windows and Linux), Windows is a lot easier to install. The (hardware etc.) learning curve for Linux (for those of us who don't put together Frankenboxen in our spare time) is like...[gasp! choke! claw! rope! oxygen! piton!]...Mount Everest compared to the Windows install, which is a little bit like a relaxed stroll through the Canadian Shield.
On the other hand, Linux install screens are generally livelier (if misspelled occasionally), like anybody but me cares.
I don't care how this was modded. Perdida's right. In India, where the digital divide is pretty damned bad (I feel so saw-ry for those of you bitching because you can't get games except over broadband...grow up!), there's an initiative by the government to wire some of the poorest sections of the poorest states. Analysts over there predict that by 2005, every little village in Andhra Pradesh, one of India's poorest states, will have access to fibre-optic communications, and computers to go with. Already this initiative is turning AP's biggest city, Hyderabad, into "Cyberabad," as it's known in some circles. (Hyderabad programmers are also doing a lot of work for US-based software companies, BTW...) It's a big, big success story.
You could say that programmes like that are similar to turn-of-the-last-century Rural Electrification projects--unless forced, companies won't put broadband where it won't necessarily make money. And unlike what one poster said, it actually is in government and industry's best interests to provide telco (in all forms) as infrastructure. A happy, wired, information rich population works better than the alternative.
Similarly, here in Canada where the government generally does a pretty good job of keeping its thumb on corporations (with a few notable exceptions), broadband prices are regulated so that no one gets charged more than $50/month. Good deal, eh?
Hmmm, two Commonwealth countries with common-sense approaches to both government and the Internet. Could it be some kind of post-British colonial influence? Nah, because then American culture would have it too. But I wonder...
Not only that, but Buddy who wrote the piece writes as if he never heard of the difference between real English and Marketroid-speak. I mean, how many different non-naturally shifted nouns can he use in one sentence as verbs and so on?
Between all that, the ideological thunderstorm going on (think of the mechanics of a thunderstorm and you'll get it), and general confusion, the whole thing is pretty well unreadable.
Unfortunately, [shakes head] so is this post, I think. Time to sleep.
I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to do a "targetted hack" on this guy... We already know from the article (assuming of course that the article is correct) that he uses Outlook at home, which tells me (and you) plenty. I mean, if he can find you, you can find him, desu ne?
Quasi-Disclaimer: The above was postulated for thought-experiment purposes only. I am not responsible for anyone who actually does hack Powell, and if it do happen, it won't be me, because I don't have the skills. And I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone over a term I use for the purposes of lexical brevity -- you know which one, ok?
My first response to this load of horse puckey is "Oh, please!" My second response is, "Someone mod this guy down!" Maybe Flamebait, or Troll to start with. Is there a category for "Flagrant Factual Misstatement"?
Anyone who thinks that Canada's hate crime laws are draconian and anti-Christian should try to live here for awhile. By the way, sir, the reason our government doesn't take kindly to religious schools with far-fetched ideas is that we actually do, contrary to US accepted practice, actually have some kind of country-wide educational standards (which means no entry exams for college or university, among other things). It's not a question of "what the government [allegedly] wants you to believe," and anyone who says that is a whacko and a liar.
As to our version of the FCC (called the CRTC), well, if you think their version of "censorship" (which also helps to keep people like Ernst Zundel and Wolfgang Droege (see Project Nizkor for more details) from being Canada's answer to Art Bell...among other public liabilities.
On the other hand, we have a public education system that's actually pretty good, and the Air Farce AND This Hour Has 22 Minutes. So I guess living in a horrrible anti-Christian Communist pogrom-laden country like Canada isn't so bad after all...
Courage, my brothers and sisters of Open Sores
on
License to Sit
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, you will get that movement going...the major problem is that your "proto-chair" only comes partially finished, and not "configured" to your siddown (mind the splinters--and the splinter factions!). This "proto-chair" will be called the "kernel," of course, and most models of the kernel will come in wood, don't you think?
Sales of Kernel Sanders will therefore go way up. Of course, this Open Sores movement is therefore not for chickens.
Interrogigglex3
I knew a Unix Wizard once. We called him the Open Sourceror.
Ever read Mark Turner's The Literary Mind? Run, don't walk, find a copy, struggle through it, and then come back and reread what you just wrote.
There's a big difference between metaphors and parallelisms (in a literary sense), whether or not those parallelisms are being done with direct metaphors, or similes, catachresis, whatever. A lot of metaphors you simply cannot and should not get away from (see Ortony as well). Your example doesn't wash, because what you're describing is a parallelism, not a metaphor. My handy Holman and Harmon Handbook To Literature says that a metaphor is "an analogy identifying one object with another and ascribing to the first object one or more qualities of the second." Metaphors therefore don't necessarily "imply facts that are not necessarily true when carried from one situation to the next," because with many metaphors, there's simply not enough area of congruency to make workable more points of comparison than the stated or obvious. Many metaphors (such as "the leg of a table" or "the keystone of an argument") don't imply much in the way of facts at all, really. And metaphors are not necessarily "inherently misleading," because, if you know anything about metaphors, you know that you just can't get away from them. Even the term "misleading" is, dare I say, a metaphor. Only bad metaphors are misleading (and then not always), and that's exactly what the paper is trying to correct.
Metaphors do provide a useful and necessary way for human beings to assimilate information -- mainly by symbolically linking the unknown to the known. Therefore we can shorten the learning curve for those not "in the know" about these complex issues (like computer privacy, reverse engineering, encryption, etc.). Considering that these people are going to be making the rules that will affect all of our future internet dealings, don't you think it's fair, and even right, to give them as much of a leg up as they need?
Finally, a mass audience of people (thanks, ironically enough to the New York Times -- think Mitnick, choke!) are waking up to the importance of metaphors in computing.
Computer metaphorics rock! Not only that, but they're hugely overlooked by most geeks, who are more interested in code rhetoric/tweaking than visual/textual/content rhetoric/tweaking (as it should be!). Nevertheless, I feel extremely vindicated that someone else, seemingly independently, has come up with the idea that a good controlling metaphor can, so to speak, move mountains -- both in computing and outside of it. Now if only they'd had a good one for the DeCSS case...
And, yeah, computer metaphorics sounds arcane and weird, but it's useful in so many different ways -- interface/web/etc. design, computer pedagogy, and socioinformatic study in general are just the ones I can come up with off the (damp) top.
Also, I have to thank Professor Neil Randall, of the University of Waterloo (mad phat props, Neil, I know you're out there and reading/.!) for waking me up to computer metaphorics and making computers way cool for me -- I wouldn't be here otherwise! -- and to Rob Kling of SLIS at the U of Indiana at Bloomington (who's the point-man in socioinformatics).
Hmmm, also this looks personally promising for me...don't tell me that by the time I do my PhD in this, there'll actually be an existing body of working theorists! Frabjuous day!
I just told my cat (Markus Clawdius Aurelius Nero) that I was going to put him in a jar and turn him into a pretzel. He was so disgusted with the idea that he rolled over so I could scratch his tummy.
I'm so disgusted with the site that I can't seem to stop giggling, and saying "Yuuck!" (Nuttin' like a little Stephen King style "going for the gross-out" to liven up one's evening, sez I.)
When I moved here, I looked all over the city for a small, local, geek-owned-and-operated ISP (one likes to do business with one's own in these matters). I found one (The Connection), which was a very small, new company. The problem with the market here where I live is that most of the small ISPs have been bought out, and everyone wants to get online. ISPs here will actually refuse to sign you up if you don't want to pay by credit card, f'rinstance...
Anyway, not two months later, my ISP service goes completely down. I can't even connect; one line is busied out, the other one says "The number you have reached is not in service...". No warning, no nothing. Four days later service comes back, and I discover to my horror that Connection has been bought out by a huge conglom. So now instead of tech support Rhys-with-the-cute-voice, I have to deal with some ditzy women who sound perpetually stoned, don't know what they're talking about, and assume that the person on the other end knows even less; a payment plan that assumes credit cards (when I signed up, I walked into Connection's office with cash in hand--I have no credit card) -- paying for my next subscrip is going to be interesting -- and service that is prone to sluggardliness, busy signals, sudden disconnection, and losing e-mail.
Why? Because small ISPs make money hand over fist here and therefore become profitable targets for large conglomerations in takeovers.
No, I won't call you a dreamer. Obviously Leadbeater is one of these fellahs who think the Internet should be pay-per-view TV with fewer moving parts. Maybe he surfs with his credit cards out alla time, who knows?
I also think his opinion of what people want/use the Net for is way off, too. Glitz, f/Flash and entertainment? Sure, but it's also a great way of getting information, something he completely overlooks--maybe because he really thinks the sheeple don't need it (?). Then again, I also agree that over-commercializing on the Net is kind of turning this big old library into one of those late-night infomercials.
At any rate, people who think that capital-B Business is the Saviour of the World[TM] make me want to go take a shower...or three. Let's hear it for the geeks, nerds, freaks, and weirdos!
(Hmmm...I bet Leadbeater's actually secretly pissed because the little guy he used to beat up on in high school is now making 10x his salary computer geeking all day...)
Oh, and ip4noman, friend...? Canadian media is (partially) socialized, not socialist. You must be some kind of Libertarian if you can't/don't/won't make that distinction. One is a societal practice, the other is a political philosophy. And (this offends my soul!) you forgot to mention the Air Farce, which kicks the Young Ones' butt around the block three times.
But you speak rightly about the regulation thing. (I love my OHIP!!)
Has anyone else out there noticed that these "outside agitator threats" seem to come in cycles (roughly ten years, or long enough for the previous incarnation to be a really sun-faded memory in the minds of the Great Unwashed)? (The second question is "Why?") First it's DRUUUGGS! Then it's YOUTH CRIME! Then EVIL_NASTY_BAD_HACKERS! Then it's TERRORISTS! Soon, no doubt, we'll be back to SATANIC CULTS and RITUAL ABUSE!
And do you really think that the majority of these so-called threats are even real, let alone as real as the media-manipulators want us to believe?
Terrorists! Drugs! Satanic Panic! I can hardly wait. Somebody come roust me out of these docs when it's over, kay?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, ok, ok. How many times does it need to be said that it doesn't matter whether or not there's news in 140 different languages or whatever going on out there, if all the news is directed by the same person (or corporation) -- or the same 6 or 10 people or corporations, how different is it going to be from itself? You can translate "Wall Street stocks crash" into 140 different languages and it'll still say the same thing, every time. You can even "translate" it in different ways (such as writing it "Wall Street stocks crash" for the straight news; "Investors burnt in stock header" for the more _Variety_ type crowd, etc. etc.) and it STILL says the same thing. Nothing times nothing is still nothing, folks.
The most compelling argument that he's at least partly wrong is a careful comparison of news broadcasts about, say, the My Lai scandal, and the WTO protests. In the first instance, even major news organs were exposing what was going on. Now all the major news organs are just covering it up by talking about anarchists and whatnot (if there were 1/2 dozen honest anarchists in that whole crowd, I'd be very surprised). Now, they wouldn't even report on something like My Lai, because most news outlets are owned by, or indirectly connected to arms manufacturers.
Don't confuse multiplying outlets with multiplying outlooks.
I am told by someone who was allegedly there during at least one of the times Hubbard made his comment about religion and money, that there was no bet, precisely. Basically, a bunch of SF authors (and Hubbard, who never wrote anything good enough to be dignified with a label much above "sci-fi" [sorry, messy sectarian partisanship there]) were talking about money, in specific, the lousy rates paid by science fiction magazines. I am told that Hubbard replied, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man wanted to make real money, he'd start his own religion." Apparently he decided to do just that.
... no religion would ever give any materials away. Just think! No more door-to-door Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or random evangelicals disturbing our sleep ever again! Also, no more Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, either.
Unfortunately, there's no force on earth that can stop the proliferation of Chick Tracts...
?!, "...not from sectarian malice."
I'm a working writer. I do understand. I just ALSO understand that electronic copies don't cause as much monetary damage as Harlan Ellison thinks (likely because he doesn't use electronic copies of anything). And I'm NOT saying that uploading pirated copies of other artists' works isn't stealing. I'm saying that it isn't the end of the world if someone does it.
And I DO pay money for Harlan Ellison's work. I'd also really like electronic copies for my own personal use (since I already own print copies that I paid for, what's the problem?), such as keyword searching for academic work etc.
And I think your "rape" metaphor is a terrible way of trying to explain this issue -- especially talking to me. Then again, I'm just Interrobang, and there's no way you could know who I really am.
And don't worry about the RIGHTS to your work. These days, copyright is forever. Enforcement is another question. Monetary damages from lack of copyright enforcement from internet use is yet another issue (and, I think, the most important one). What Harlan (and you) don't seem to get is that electronic copies don't really dent the market all that much. After all, what's worse for writers' wallets -- some electronic copies (considering that books are still more portable and easier to use), or the attitudes of publishers that cause things like literary cliqueyness, the disappearance of the "mid-list", or the vicious declining sales numbers/print run cycle?
Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Yes, he's an award-winning writer. Unfortunately, he does have a habit of getting worked-up and freaking out about things he doesn't know enough about to get freaked out about. I actually rather suspect the ALL CAPS was a result of lousy transcription by the website people.
First of all, Harlan is not an AOL user; he's a NON-user. He's probably used a computer maybe 5 times in his entire life. He still writes using a manual typewriter, AFAIK. So he probably doesn't understand that internet copyright infringement not as big a deal as it sounds...or that downloading isn't precisely theft, because the "original" isn't gone; it's just been duplicated.
Secondly, since he's a non-user, he has no idea how useful a keyword-searchable copy of his work could be (I did my senior undergrad thesis on Harlan Ellison in 1997; I sure could have used it then) -- OR how much of a pain in the @$$ reading off of a screen for long periods of time can be. Or that books still work in bed, in the bathroom, on public transit, out camping, or anywhere else much better than hand-held reader appliances.
So if you think you might have something cogent and (above all) POLITE to say to him about this, write him at:
Attn: Harlan Ellison
c/o HERC
P.O. Box 55548
Sherman Oaks, California (USA)
91413-0548
Please be sure to include your name, address, and phone number in your letter. He prefers to reply, if necessary, by telephone, because it saves time. I wrote him once, and he called me. We chatted. In person, he's a really nice guy. He just has a nasty public persona, which is why it's so important to be polite. He'll be nice if you be nice. No nasty flame-mail to Uncle Harlan on my account, please, guys. If you are rude to him, he'll just go to town on your @$$...and he's far more nasty at his worst than you could ever hope to be. So be nice, ok?
Interrobang, Ellison Fan since 1988!
PS--The "acronym" thing was just an Ellison joke. He knows what "acronym" means...it's just funnier that way.
If you'd actually bothered to read the article, pb, you might have noticed that she wasn't "down on" Linux at all. No one who's used it that long could really hate it, after all... Still, she's right about a few things.
One: For the average end-user, Linux is way too difficult. Hell, it was really tough for me to get going, and I'm about as far above most people as most of you are above me, in terms of computer know-how. And never mind the dumb users, who can't figure out how to use the "Reply" button, or, when asked questions like "Does it run on Windows or Mac?" say, "I don't know, I don't get into that technical stuff." (Don't laugh. It happened to me. I couldn't make up something that weird.) No one should have to know how many cylinders are in their drive before they can install an(other) OS, but I did. While, I admit, learning more than I cared to know about my hardware was certainly edifying, it was also a fsck of a lot of work.
Two: AFAI'm concerned, the documentation and HOWTOs are all written in Moon Language or some designated alternate. They're certainly not written in terribly comprehensible English (although the ones by Rob Malda are at least funny in places). Most of them suffer from the "COIK" problem (for "Comprehensible Only If Known") -- that is, if you can understand the doc or HOWTO, you don't need to read it. Many of them tell you everything you need to know about the given item -- except the one vital piece of information you need (such as how to open a file or something). I know about technical documentation for end-users! I at least attempt to do it for a living! And some of those docs or HOWTOs should be textbook examples of what not to do.
Plus, of course, judging by the tone of this article, at least some of her griping is hyperbole anyway, so don't get your UNIX bloomers in a knot.
?!
...but it's gone on too long. (Thank you Ogden Nash.)
I totally disagree with this idea. Cell phones will probably always annoy me, especially when wielded by clueless teenagers on crowded streetcars. Wait 'til you get home, you morons! Being free from the ubiquitous cheesy beeping classical music knock-off (or cutesy TV theme song, etc.) ringing, and brainless people's inane conversations for once without fear of legal reprisal from stomping the offending gadget into powder would be nice, as well.
Of course, we all know how this one is going to go (unless the CRTC, in its infinite wisdom actually decides to grow a backbone), so my fond wish of actually obtaining and using a cell phone jammer is more than likely just a moot point.
Ehhhh, shouldn't'a got me started. This is one of my sore points.
Just out of idle curiosity, does anyone else out there see cell phones, pagers, etc. more as leashes and choke chains than anything else (gee, yeah, I want my boss to be able to get hold of me no matter where I am or what time it is--even though he doesn't have to? Sure...)?
?!
Here's why. Shelley Duvall in _The Shining_.
No, really. Or, if you don't like that example, substitute _your version of the ugliest celebrity in the world in a really horrible role for them here_. When you read a book, you can make the characters look and sound any way you want them to, avoiding those painful "miscastings," plus (extra bonus!) your imagination gets a workout by having to provide all those little details books don't provide but TV does. Concentration also burns about 120 calories per hour, if I remember correctly, which is another good "workout" reason.
Case in point to my first premise, when I was in University and had to study _Pride and Prejudice_, the only way I was able to even finish the book was by imagining the Monty Pythons in drag (as the Misses Barrett, etc.) performing it. It was a scream that way. No such _Pride and Prejudice_ movie exists, and even John Cleese in a skirt is more fun to look at than Kate Winslet or whomever with her waist corseted down to (gag! retch!) 22 inches.
"Been around the world and found
That only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a TV."
(Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta")
Yeah. This would be serious if it weren't so funny.
If God longs for a personal relationship with me, why doesn't It return Its phone calls? It's not like I don't have an answering machine, either. I even tried writing letters, e-mailing, and faxing. Ok, so the fax didn't go through... But I tried!
You know, you just try, and try, and TRY to get in touch with someone...
Hmm, by that criterion, God is James Kennedy from Cleveland.
Sorry, having done both (install Windows and Linux), Windows is a lot easier to install. The (hardware etc.) learning curve for Linux (for those of us who don't put together Frankenboxen in our spare time) is like...[gasp! choke! claw! rope! oxygen! piton!]...Mount Everest compared to the Windows install, which is a little bit like a relaxed stroll through the Canadian Shield.
On the other hand, Linux install screens are generally livelier (if misspelled occasionally), like anybody but me cares.
I don't care how this was modded. Perdida's right. In India, where the digital divide is pretty damned bad (I feel so saw-ry for those of you bitching because you can't get games except over broadband...grow up!), there's an initiative by the government to wire some of the poorest sections of the poorest states. Analysts over there predict that by 2005, every little village in Andhra Pradesh, one of India's poorest states, will have access to fibre-optic communications, and computers to go with. Already this initiative is turning AP's biggest city, Hyderabad, into "Cyberabad," as it's known in some circles. (Hyderabad programmers are also doing a lot of work for US-based software companies, BTW...) It's a big, big success story.
You could say that programmes like that are similar to turn-of-the-last-century Rural Electrification projects--unless forced, companies won't put broadband where it won't necessarily make money. And unlike what one poster said, it actually is in government and industry's best interests to provide telco (in all forms) as infrastructure. A happy, wired, information rich population works better than the alternative.
Similarly, here in Canada where the government generally does a pretty good job of keeping its thumb on corporations (with a few notable exceptions), broadband prices are regulated so that no one gets charged more than $50/month. Good deal, eh?
Hmmm, two Commonwealth countries with common-sense approaches to both government and the Internet. Could it be some kind of post-British colonial influence? Nah, because then American culture would have it too. But I wonder...
Interrobang
Not only that, but Buddy who wrote the piece writes as if he never heard of the difference between real English and Marketroid-speak. I mean, how many different non-naturally shifted nouns can he use in one sentence as verbs and so on?
Between all that, the ideological thunderstorm going on (think of the mechanics of a thunderstorm and you'll get it), and general confusion, the whole thing is pretty well unreadable.
Unfortunately, [shakes head] so is this post, I think. Time to sleep.
I'll assume that was an answer, and not a comment on the post.
:(
So how do you spell "Geek" in Katakana? 'Giiku' just doesn't have the right ring to it... Ee, Giiku Gyaru jya nai des'yo!
I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to do a "targetted hack" on this guy... We already know from the article (assuming of course that the article is correct) that he uses Outlook at home, which tells me (and you) plenty. I mean, if he can find you, you can find him, desu ne?
Quasi-Disclaimer: The above was postulated for thought-experiment purposes only. I am not responsible for anyone who actually does hack Powell, and if it do happen, it won't be me, because I don't have the skills. And I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone over a term I use for the purposes of lexical brevity -- you know which one, ok?
Actually, "minutiae" is a real word. It's the plural of "minutia," which means "tiny details." Arcana is just "arcana," though.
Personally, I prefer "picayune." And people who can spell.
My first response to this load of horse puckey is "Oh, please!" My second response is, "Someone mod this guy down!" Maybe Flamebait, or Troll to start with. Is there a category for "Flagrant Factual Misstatement"?
Anyone who thinks that Canada's hate crime laws are draconian and anti-Christian should try to live here for awhile. By the way, sir, the reason our government doesn't take kindly to religious schools with far-fetched ideas is that we actually do, contrary to US accepted practice, actually have some kind of country-wide educational standards (which means no entry exams for college or university, among other things). It's not a question of "what the government [allegedly] wants you to believe," and anyone who says that is a whacko and a liar.
As to our version of the FCC (called the CRTC), well, if you think their version of "censorship" (which also helps to keep people like Ernst Zundel and Wolfgang Droege (see Project Nizkor for more details) from being Canada's answer to Art Bell...among other public liabilities.
On the other hand, we have a public education system that's actually pretty good, and the Air Farce AND This Hour Has 22 Minutes. So I guess living in a horrrible anti-Christian Communist pogrom-laden country like Canada isn't so bad after all...
Yeah, you will get that movement going...the major problem is that your "proto-chair" only comes partially finished, and not "configured" to your siddown (mind the splinters--and the splinter factions!). This "proto-chair" will be called the "kernel," of course, and most models of the kernel will come in wood, don't you think?
Sales of Kernel Sanders will therefore go way up. Of course, this Open Sores movement is therefore not for chickens.
Interrogigglex3
I knew a Unix Wizard once. We called him the Open Sourceror.
Ever read Mark Turner's The Literary Mind? Run, don't walk, find a copy, struggle through it, and then come back and reread what you just wrote.
There's a big difference between metaphors and parallelisms (in a literary sense), whether or not those parallelisms are being done with direct metaphors, or similes, catachresis, whatever. A lot of metaphors you simply cannot and should not get away from (see Ortony as well). Your example doesn't wash, because what you're describing is a parallelism, not a metaphor. My handy Holman and Harmon Handbook To Literature says that a metaphor is "an analogy identifying one object with another and ascribing to the first object one or more qualities of the second." Metaphors therefore don't necessarily "imply facts that are not necessarily true when carried from one situation to the next," because with many metaphors, there's simply not enough area of congruency to make workable more points of comparison than the stated or obvious. Many metaphors (such as "the leg of a table" or "the keystone of an argument") don't imply much in the way of facts at all, really. And metaphors are not necessarily "inherently misleading," because, if you know anything about metaphors, you know that you just can't get away from them. Even the term "misleading" is, dare I say, a metaphor. Only bad metaphors are misleading (and then not always), and that's exactly what the paper is trying to correct.
Metaphors do provide a useful and necessary way for human beings to assimilate information -- mainly by symbolically linking the unknown to the known. Therefore we can shorten the learning curve for those not "in the know" about these complex issues (like computer privacy, reverse engineering, encryption, etc.). Considering that these people are going to be making the rules that will affect all of our future internet dealings, don't you think it's fair, and even right, to give them as much of a leg up as they need?
(Sigh...shouldn't've gotten started...)
Interrobang
Finally, a mass audience of people (thanks, ironically enough to the New York Times -- think Mitnick, choke!) are waking up to the importance of metaphors in computing.
/.!) for waking me up to computer metaphorics and making computers way cool for me -- I wouldn't be here otherwise! -- and to Rob Kling of SLIS at the U of Indiana at Bloomington (who's the point-man in socioinformatics).
Computer metaphorics rock! Not only that, but they're hugely overlooked by most geeks, who are more interested in code rhetoric/tweaking than visual/textual/content rhetoric/tweaking (as it should be!). Nevertheless, I feel extremely vindicated that someone else, seemingly independently, has come up with the idea that a good controlling metaphor can, so to speak, move mountains -- both in computing and outside of it. Now if only they'd had a good one for the DeCSS case...
And, yeah, computer metaphorics sounds arcane and weird, but it's useful in so many different ways -- interface/web/etc. design, computer pedagogy, and socioinformatic study in general are just the ones I can come up with off the (damp) top.
Also, I have to thank Professor Neil Randall, of the University of Waterloo (mad phat props, Neil, I know you're out there and reading
Hmmm, also this looks personally promising for me...don't tell me that by the time I do my PhD in this, there'll actually be an existing body of working theorists! Frabjuous day!
Sign me, metaphorically speaking, accourse,
Interrobang
I just told my cat (Markus Clawdius Aurelius Nero) that I was going to put him in a jar and turn him into a pretzel. He was so disgusted with the idea that he rolled over so I could scratch his tummy.
I'm so disgusted with the site that I can't seem to stop giggling, and saying "Yuuck!" (Nuttin' like a little Stephen King style "going for the gross-out" to liven up one's evening, sez I.)
?!
When I moved here, I looked all over the city for a small, local, geek-owned-and-operated ISP (one likes to do business with one's own in these matters). I found one (The Connection), which was a very small, new company. The problem with the market here where I live is that most of the small ISPs have been bought out, and everyone wants to get online. ISPs here will actually refuse to sign you up if you don't want to pay by credit card, f'rinstance...
Anyway, not two months later, my ISP service goes completely down. I can't even connect; one line is busied out, the other one says "The number you have reached is not in service...". No warning, no nothing. Four days later service comes back, and I discover to my horror that Connection has been bought out by a huge conglom. So now instead of tech support Rhys-with-the-cute-voice, I have to deal with some ditzy women who sound perpetually stoned, don't know what they're talking about, and assume that the person on the other end knows even less; a payment plan that assumes credit cards (when I signed up, I walked into Connection's office with cash in hand--I have no credit card) -- paying for my next subscrip is going to be interesting -- and service that is prone to sluggardliness, busy signals, sudden disconnection, and losing e-mail.
Why? Because small ISPs make money hand over fist here and therefore become profitable targets for large conglomerations in takeovers.
Sigh...
?!
No, I won't call you a dreamer. Obviously Leadbeater is one of these fellahs who think the Internet should be pay-per-view TV with fewer moving parts. Maybe he surfs with his credit cards out alla time, who knows?
I also think his opinion of what people want/use the Net for is way off, too. Glitz, f/Flash and entertainment? Sure, but it's also a great way of getting information, something he completely overlooks--maybe because he really thinks the sheeple don't need it (?). Then again, I also agree that over-commercializing on the Net is kind of turning this big old library into one of those late-night infomercials.
At any rate, people who think that capital-B Business is the Saviour of the World[TM] make me want to go take a shower...or three. Let's hear it for the geeks, nerds, freaks, and weirdos!
(Hmmm...I bet Leadbeater's actually secretly pissed because the little guy he used to beat up on in high school is now making 10x his salary computer geeking all day...)
Oh, and ip4noman, friend...? Canadian media is (partially) socialized, not socialist. You must be some kind of Libertarian if you can't/don't/won't make that distinction. One is a societal practice, the other is a political philosophy. And (this offends my soul!) you forgot to mention the Air Farce, which kicks the Young Ones' butt around the block three times.
But you speak rightly about the regulation thing. (I love my OHIP!!)
?! -- ?!
Has anyone else out there noticed that these "outside agitator threats" seem to come in cycles (roughly ten years, or long enough for the previous incarnation to be a really sun-faded memory in the minds of the Great Unwashed)? (The second question is "Why?") First it's DRUUUGGS! Then it's YOUTH CRIME! Then EVIL_NASTY_BAD_HACKERS! Then it's TERRORISTS! Soon, no doubt, we'll be back to SATANIC CULTS and RITUAL ABUSE!
And do you really think that the majority of these so-called threats are even real, let alone as real as the media-manipulators want us to believe?
Terrorists! Drugs! Satanic Panic! I can hardly wait. Somebody come roust me out of these docs when it's over, kay?
?!
I did...Now what?
...If I type Ctrl+Alt+ this funny thing called an "XServer" shuts down and my screen goes all black, though...
I dunno, shucky-darn... Guess I'm pretty dumb if I can't even get an IQ test to work right.
Charly (No Flowers, please, just Publick Keyes!)