I'm sure Michael understands why DRM is pretty important and why the other issues matter, but what you don't understand is, his point wasn't to dismiss DRM and other technology issues, but rather highlight the apathy to these issues.
What you don't SEEM to understand is, while MP3 patents and DRM issues are very big issues that will really affect us in 5-15 years time, people don't care or understand it yet. People understand when you tell them the patent system is gridlocking medical advancements (Cancer, HIV cures).
What you also don't seem to understand is that we're a small voice of people who despirately need allies with organizations who have issues that people care about (Cancer research, HIV). First, you have to understand that a lot people won't care about DRM and MP3 patents. You're going to have to find another reason to get them to care. In this case, it's using HIV and Cancer issues to get people caring about an issue that affects us (Corrupt patent system). If we're smart, we'll would leverage the business interests of ISPs and consumer electronics on DRM issues.
In other words, you need to give people a simple reason to care. Expecting otherwise is just stupid.
I've gotten pretty far merging relational and object models.
Personally, I find OOP can be a bit rediculous when everything is mindlessly reduced to a rigid object model as dictated by some guy's rigid methodology. (Not all are rigid)
What I've found, is that most of the time is a matter of versatile interfaces. Myself wanting the best of my procedural language and SQL, I found myself creating interfaces that implement smart tables. A smart table is an object that exposes an arbitrary number of properties, like that of a named collection. Unlike a normal named collection, a smart table allows you to implement adhoc rules (changing this field causes this), using code, stored procedures, etc. Need more than just smart properties? Fine, derive from the Smart Table base class, and add your own functions (usually stored procedures)
Consumer electronics has dramatically changed in the last 10 years. It's no longer exclusive to the Japanese enterprises and entertainment devices. Making a CD player that can read MP3's or any other arbitrary format is limited by the guy writing the firmware. Secondly, you shouldn't discount the pervasiveness of PDA devices and their growing roles as MP3 players, Internet browsers, eBook readers, and maybe movie players in 3-5 years?? (using a UWB wireless connection to a portable DVD player)
Go to audible.com: It's an online retailer that sells primarily audio books, in a secure format. Already many MP3 players support DRM system, including: All Pocket PC's, Handspring, Rio, Iomega, Digisette, and Franklin.
Not bad for a little operation...
Imagine what Microsoft could do? (If they wanted to do something)
Next time you call me ignorant, why don't you back it up with a LITTLE insight and SOME information rather than just stating an empty assertion.
A person can't be open minded about DRM and hate Big Media too?
If you would have comprehended ANYTHING I wrote, you would have understood that I think DRM (if done corectly) could enable independant artists to distribute thier own works via thier website, WITHOUT having to sign your life away to Big Media.
Big Media essentially does two things:
1. It distributes 2. It promotes
The reason the record companies, publishers are able to keep thier grips on the industry is because they bundle distribution with promotion. For most artists, there is no other way they can offer thier works to so many people and get people to actually pay for it. Wouldn't you know it if Big Media uses this to have writers and artists sign thier lifes away. What else can they do?
The Internet has been turning into a great way to distribute content, so good infact people will be happy to distribute your content for you via P2P networks. Never mind you probably won't see a dime, but your works will get distributed.
While a good DRM system will do nothing to get your work on the shelves, and do little to promote it, it WILL commodify distribution and give artists more financial leverege dealing with Big Media, by giving artists a way to dsitribute thier own works WITHOUT the need for Big Media.
AOL/TW has a lot of competitors, both Cable and DSL who's services are priced competitively, so I don't see them taking whole pie anytime soon. Even if the cable companies gain an overwhelming majority of customers 5-10 years down the road, AOL/TW will still only be part of the pie.
And how would this system distinguish legal copying from illegal copying?
A. It wouldn't. Tough titties.
But if you were a programmer, writer, artist, and musician, you would be able to control how your work is used (whether it's pay-per-view, enjoys all prior fair uses, can be resold, loaned, licenses for each use, etc.)
Many of the restrictions exist and are legal today, they're just not enforced with technology.
I understand an unbreakable DRM system could be used in draconian ways, but I'm willing the bet effects of protecting INDIVIDUAL work and INDIVIDUAL contributions to larger works would help balance it out.
Feel free to go for the jugular with me on this, I'm gathering some ideas, I'll get back to you with them.
Most people I know who download songs don't buy CD's anymore, why should we?
Because it's morally indefensible to illegally download music?
If morals are bothering your from doing what you want, just ignore them...
Seriously though, morals are much more pliant then you think, and it's very easy to morally defend illegally downloading music, especially in light of todays circumstances.
Rather than making this an issue of morals, I suggest you look at it as an economic issue, because it's the economic aspects that is getting everyone into a fuss.
If you want my opinion regarding the economic aspect: I think everyone could benefit from an unbreakable DRM system, and I speculate it could fuel the creation of more artistic works.
The movie industry and record industry are thriving too, but then again only a small minority of people download movies, computer games, and songs.
If more people downloaded this stuff (your mom and uncle), the entertainment industry would see less money. (Most people I know who download songs don't buy CD's anymore, why should we?)
The Gaming industry has starting moving in on the subscription model, which has worked out VERY well for them. You can't cheat the subscription model, you can only compete with it.
Secondly, It still isn't easy to download a game. Many of them span many CD's (take forever to download), and many more will buy it just because it's more convienent.
Once piracy becomes more mainstream, it will hurt the industries who it's easy to pirate. Here's the order from most susceptible to least.
1. Music - Small downloads, many devices geared for it 2. Movie - Compression makes download acceptible via highspeed internet, some won't comprimise with quality and will buy DVD. 3. Computer Gaming - Can turn to subscription services, or make games REALLY big (600 - 3000 Megs) thus making the VERY inconvienent to download.
The Entertainment industry has been fighting the Technology industry for some time now.
The technology industry wants to sell TV's, CD-RW's, DVD-RW's, Harddrives, portable MP3 players, portable DVD players, and anything else the consumer wants. If they could sell a machine that would enable the consumer to watch any movie they want or play any song they want, for free, they would be in heaven. (Better yet, THEY would like to be the ones charging $5 per view)
The entertainment industry makes the technology industry's products more exciting. With filesharing becoming popular, it's making the telecommunications industry more exciting (File Sharing fuels highspeed internet sales)
Here's where copyright law comes in: VERY strong copyright law hurts all of these fair uses that are currently fueling the technology/telecom industry. If a person can't burn a CD of music they downloaded from thier high speed connection, what good is the burner and a high speed connection?
The Telecoms want to be the ones who deliver Movies on Demand
...but they don't want to do it for free. If they could have it thier way, they would shoot the owners, assume ownership of the movie industry, and sell each movie as pay-per-view for $20 a view (or whatever price yields the most return).
Because they don't own the movies and they can't shoot the owners, they have two options.
1. Negotiate with the owners
2. Buy the owners
It's tough negotiating with the entertainment industry, because thier business model has worked very well to this point, and they don't want to risk it on some hair brained scheme that might risk it. They want to give the telcom/tech industry as little of a cut as they must, unless the telcom/tech industry can give them a lot of sales.
The Entertainment Industry and Telcom/Tech industry all need each other, but both want to hold all the cards. The entertainment industry would get it's way by legislating copy protection in every device (Hollings Bill). This would enable give them unlimited control over the terms of usage. If they want to sell you a DVD that only plays 5 times, no one would be able to stop them. Any provider who trafficked thier content without thier permission would be held liable.
The telcom/tech industry would love the same thing, but they don't have the content. They basically have two options:
1. Let file sharing go rampant, fix it (Telcoms *COULD* stop filesharing), in return for a very exclusive/lucritive deal as distributor.
2. Let file sharing go rampant for many years, let entertainment industry suffer, watch stock plummet, buy stock and content, stop file sharing + protect content with DRM, resell at nice markup.
No conspiracy here, just good business strategy...
1. Support thier campaign - $$$ 2. Give them a good arguments/rhetoric to support your cause. 3. Give them voters
This money is going towards reason #2 (education/rhetoric). You may or may not know, but the Telcoms and tech industry is on *our* side (file sharing is the killer app of telcom and consumer electronics industries), and they have already started lobbying against the MPAA's and RIAA's Hollings and P2P Hacking bills.
The latest buzz seems to be that the Telcoms and tech manufacturers are getting peeved with the MPAA and RIAA push to legislate thier industry (Hollings Bill, DMCA liability). The 20 billion dollar entertainment industry is trying to push around a 600 billion dollar tech industry.
Simply put: Piracy is the killer app for Telcoms and consumer electronics industries, unless it's in the Telcoms and consumer electronics.
My theory: I think the Telcoms and friends want to devalue the entertainment industry. They want the same exclusive content that AOL/Time Warner enjoys, but rather aquiring the content via an expensive merger, our friends would much rather buy all that content at commidity prices, or sign exclusive deals to act as the conduit to deliver music and entertainment at competitive prices.
If you really want to figure out who's conspiring what. (1) You have to be realistic (2) You have to determine how it pays off
1. You don't have to be 100% effective to be effective. 2. Maybe the point is to remind Chinese citizens they can filter any part of the Internet whenever they want. This keeps the censorship precident active, in the event they want to *really* lock down on unfavorable opinions. 3. Maybe they want information to slowly seep into the country to reduce the risk of information shock.
These sort of arguments apply well to content protection schemes. It doesn't have to work 100% to work.
Maybe if I had taking 3 seconds to read his post instead of trying to be clear, I would have understood.
Will you learn not to be such an asshole when you post? Yes, The asshole thing isn't working out, I was really insulting with some Ned Flanders guy (Nice guy, tries to be disarming) and I realized that this was getting out of hand.
I guess I always admired guys who were harshly insulting when I was a kid, because I could never do it myself. I figure I'll tune down the harshness and hatefulness and try to exercise insightful irony (much harder to do)
You wrote: Isn't that the point of a parody? To show how absurd things would be if taken to extremes? They're bound to be right once in a while.
Spaceballs warned us of this day!!
I wish I knew somebody who installed Linux recently. I'd love to get a story posted on Slashdot
1. Your first 3 sentences were patronizing and condecending 2. Your 'Spaceballs told us this day would come' was meant to be disarming, especially after being patronizing and condecending. 3. You didn't get the joke, your disarming joke conveys NOTHING that would suggest you DID get the joke. Your patronizing insights conveyed EVERYTHING that you didn't get the joke. If anything, your disarming joke vindicated one of your point, "They're bound to be right once in a while." 4. I argue/insult for practise. 5. I didn't need to get shitty with you. 6. I don't want to grow up, but I guess I have to. 7. You seem like a very nice person. 8. Even nice people can be intentionally/inadvertantly patronizing / condescending. 9. I didn't need to get shitty with you. 10. You probably demonstrated one of the nicest ways of correcting someone (esp. the disarming notice) 11. There will always be assholes like me who will interpret your kind criticisms viciously. 12. I didn't need to get shitty with you. 13. I'm sorry
There you go. Not only do you get an apology, but you get vindication, insight into assholes, and knowning you've influenced someone for the better.
Rather than trying to learn the art of being insulting, maybe I should learn the art of being insightfully ironical...
CBS *FILMED* the conversion work - Publicized - Nothing happened
David Koresh Performed the Conversion - Demonstrated - Got into trouble
Now if they reporter had PERFORMED the conversion, I'd say you're on to something.
Are there double standards? Probably. Did you demonstrate one? No. Did you make the same mistake as the original poster? Yes. Will you learn to distinguish between the two? (Insert Your Answer Here)
1. Parodies usually immitate life's dumbest moments so as to demonstrate what NOT to do...
2. In my musings I talk about life immitating a parody (Oppostie of #1)
Can you see WHY you didn't understand my this angle of humor and how you might choke the life out of future jokes my not taking the time to find the irony, or atleast the illusion of irony? (Sometimes the fucking joke is the illusion of irony)
Do you get it now? (Christ, I'm feeling hateful today)
It's ok to publicize flaws in computer networks, you just can't demonstate the flaw if doing so is breaking the law. In this case, it seems like he got permission, so I doubt they could consider this an unauthorized intrusion.
As soon as you mentioned Airport Security I remember the guy who got through with something like a box cutter and announced it. They immediately arrest the guy.
This concludes our lesson on how not to blatently compare apples to oranges.
There's probably a double standard in there somewhere, but you didn't find it.
Now can you why comparing pure capitalism to anarchy is a bad idea? Anarchy suggests no legal framework. Use minimal government instead, suggesting anarchy gets guys like me in a fit.
While you're idea might sound neat in theory, you need to add some basic common sense.
- WHERE I AGREE - 1. Our government IS too large. 2. 50% tax rate is way too much.
- WHERE I DISAGREE - Anarchy isn't 100% pure Capitalism
Go to Africa if you want to see your extreme form of capitalism at work or any other fucked up area on the earth where governments don't protect people from enterprising warlords.
Real Capitalism needs a Foundation
First you need a legal framework that applies to everybody equally. Then you'll need institutions to enforce and execute the law. You'll need to make sure these institutions are resistant to corruption, especially when the goal of corruption is to circumvent the law. If you don't, you end up modeling yourself after many 3rd world countries.
Here's the real truth: You don't have a clue as to why capitalism has worked in many first world countries and why it's done very little in many third-world countries.
Here's a hint: Turn off the pundant on the radio, he's probably a divisive asshole who's just trying to get ratings by making his listeners feel vindicated when he explains the real simple answer.
You'll figure it out when you realize you're not as smart as you think you are.
Lastly, Realizing your stupidity is the first step towards getting smarter. I should know. I got this smart by realizing my stupidity A LOT. Sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but give it a shot! Admit to yourself you don't have a fucking clue, and you're really making up answers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Michael understands why DRM is pretty important and why the other issues matter, but what you don't understand is, his point wasn't to dismiss DRM and other technology issues, but rather highlight the apathy to these issues.
What you don't SEEM to understand is, while MP3 patents and DRM issues are very big issues that will really affect us in 5-15 years time, people don't care or understand it yet. People understand when you tell them the patent system is gridlocking medical advancements (Cancer, HIV cures).
What you also don't seem to understand is that we're a small voice of people who despirately need allies with organizations who have issues that people care about (Cancer research, HIV). First, you have to understand that a lot people won't care about DRM and MP3 patents. You're going to have to find another reason to get them to care. In this case, it's using HIV and Cancer issues to get people caring about an issue that affects us (Corrupt patent system). If we're smart, we'll would leverage the business interests of ISPs and consumer electronics on DRM issues.
In other words, you need to give people a simple reason to care. Expecting otherwise is just stupid.
I've gotten pretty far merging relational and object models.
Personally, I find OOP can be a bit rediculous when everything is mindlessly reduced to a rigid object model as dictated by some guy's rigid methodology. (Not all are rigid)
What I've found, is that most of the time is a matter of versatile interfaces. Myself wanting the best of my procedural language and SQL, I found myself creating interfaces that implement smart tables. A smart table is an object that exposes an arbitrary number of properties, like that of a named collection. Unlike a normal named collection, a smart table allows you to implement adhoc rules (changing this field causes this), using code, stored procedures, etc. Need more than just smart properties? Fine, derive from the Smart Table base class, and add your own functions (usually stored procedures)
Consumer electronics has dramatically changed in the last 10 years. It's no longer exclusive to the Japanese enterprises and entertainment devices. Making a CD player that can read MP3's or any other arbitrary format is limited by the guy writing the firmware. Secondly, you shouldn't discount the pervasiveness of PDA devices and their growing roles as MP3 players, Internet browsers, eBook readers, and maybe movie players in 3-5 years?? (using a UWB wireless connection to a portable DVD player)
Go to audible.com: It's an online retailer that sells primarily audio books, in a secure format. Already many MP3 players support DRM system, including: All Pocket PC's, Handspring, Rio, Iomega, Digisette, and Franklin.
Not bad for a little operation...
Imagine what Microsoft could do? (If they wanted to do something)
Next time you call me ignorant, why don't you back it up with a LITTLE insight and SOME information rather than just stating an empty assertion.
A person can't be open minded about DRM and hate Big Media too?
If you would have comprehended ANYTHING I wrote, you would have understood that I think DRM (if done corectly) could enable independant artists to distribute thier own works via thier website, WITHOUT having to sign your life away to Big Media.
Big Media essentially does two things:
1. It distributes
2. It promotes
The reason the record companies, publishers are able to keep thier grips on the industry is because they bundle distribution with promotion. For most artists, there is no other way they can offer thier works to so many people and get people to actually pay for it. Wouldn't you know it if Big Media uses this to have writers and artists sign thier lifes away. What else can they do?
The Internet has been turning into a great way to distribute content, so good infact people will be happy to distribute your content for you via P2P networks. Never mind you probably won't see a dime, but your works will get distributed.
While a good DRM system will do nothing to get your work on the shelves, and do little to promote it, it WILL commodify distribution and give artists more financial leverege dealing with Big Media, by giving artists a way to dsitribute thier own works WITHOUT the need for Big Media.
AOL/TW has a lot of competitors, both Cable and DSL who's services are priced competitively, so I don't see them taking whole pie anytime soon. Even if the cable companies gain an overwhelming majority of customers 5-10 years down the road, AOL/TW will still only be part of the pie.
And how would this system distinguish legal copying from illegal copying?
A. It wouldn't. Tough titties.
But if you were a programmer, writer, artist, and musician, you would be able to control how your work is used (whether it's pay-per-view, enjoys all prior fair uses, can be resold, loaned, licenses for each use, etc.)
Many of the restrictions exist and are legal today, they're just not enforced with technology.
I understand an unbreakable DRM system could be used in draconian ways, but I'm willing the bet effects of protecting INDIVIDUAL work and INDIVIDUAL contributions to larger works would help balance it out.
Feel free to go for the jugular with me on this, I'm gathering some ideas, I'll get back to you with them.
Most people I know who download songs don't buy CD's anymore, why should we?
Because it's morally indefensible to illegally download music?
If morals are bothering your from doing what you want, just ignore them...
Seriously though, morals are much more pliant then you think, and it's very easy to morally defend illegally downloading music, especially in light of todays circumstances.
Rather than making this an issue of morals, I suggest you look at it as an economic issue, because it's the economic aspects that is getting everyone into a fuss.
If you want my opinion regarding the economic aspect: I think everyone could benefit from an unbreakable DRM system, and I speculate it could fuel the creation of more artistic works.
The movie industry and record industry are thriving too, but then again only a small minority of people download movies, computer games, and songs.
If more people downloaded this stuff (your mom and uncle), the entertainment industry would see less money. (Most people I know who download songs don't buy CD's anymore, why should we?)
The Gaming industry has starting moving in on the subscription model, which has worked out VERY well for them. You can't cheat the subscription model, you can only compete with it.
Secondly, It still isn't easy to download a game. Many of them span many CD's (take forever to download), and many more will buy it just because it's more convienent.
Once piracy becomes more mainstream, it will hurt the industries who it's easy to pirate. Here's the order from most susceptible to least.
1. Music - Small downloads, many devices geared for it
2. Movie - Compression makes download acceptible via highspeed internet, some won't comprimise with quality and will buy DVD.
3. Computer Gaming - Can turn to subscription services, or make games REALLY big (600 - 3000 Megs) thus making the VERY inconvienent to download.
The Entertainment industry has been fighting the Technology industry for some time now.
...but they don't want to do it for free. If they could have it thier way, they would shoot the owners, assume ownership of the movie industry, and sell each movie as pay-per-view for $20 a view (or whatever price yields the most return).
:)
The technology industry wants to sell TV's, CD-RW's, DVD-RW's, Harddrives, portable MP3 players, portable DVD players, and anything else the consumer wants. If they could sell a machine that would enable the consumer to watch any movie they want or play any song they want, for free, they would be in heaven. (Better yet, THEY would like to be the ones charging $5 per view)
The entertainment industry makes the technology industry's products more exciting. With filesharing becoming popular, it's making the telecommunications industry more exciting (File Sharing fuels highspeed internet sales)
Here's where copyright law comes in: VERY strong copyright law hurts all of these fair uses that are currently fueling the technology/telecom industry. If a person can't burn a CD of music they downloaded from thier high speed connection, what good is the burner and a high speed connection?
The Telecoms want to be the ones who deliver Movies on Demand
Because they don't own the movies and they can't shoot the owners, they have two options.
1. Negotiate with the owners
2. Buy the owners
It's tough negotiating with the entertainment industry, because thier business model has worked very well to this point, and they don't want to risk it on some hair brained scheme that might risk it. They want to give the telcom/tech industry as little of a cut as they must, unless the telcom/tech industry can give them a lot of sales.
The Entertainment Industry and Telcom/Tech industry all need each other, but both want to hold all the cards. The entertainment industry would get it's way by legislating copy protection in every device (Hollings Bill). This would enable give them unlimited control over the terms of usage. If they want to sell you a DVD that only plays 5 times, no one would be able to stop them. Any provider who trafficked thier content without thier permission would be held liable.
The telcom/tech industry would love the same thing, but they don't have the content. They basically have two options:
1. Let file sharing go rampant, fix it (Telcoms *COULD* stop filesharing), in return for a very exclusive/lucritive deal as distributor.
2. Let file sharing go rampant for many years, let entertainment industry suffer, watch stock plummet, buy stock and content, stop file sharing + protect content with DRM, resell at nice markup.
No conspiracy here, just good business strategy...
Follow the greed...
If you want to influence politicians.
1. Support thier campaign - $$$
2. Give them a good arguments/rhetoric to support your cause.
3. Give them voters
This money is going towards reason #2 (education/rhetoric). You may or may not know, but the Telcoms and tech industry is on *our* side (file sharing is the killer app of telcom and consumer electronics industries), and they have already started lobbying against the MPAA's and RIAA's Hollings and P2P Hacking bills.
The latest buzz seems to be that the Telcoms and tech manufacturers are getting peeved with the MPAA and RIAA push to legislate thier industry (Hollings Bill, DMCA liability). The 20 billion dollar entertainment industry is trying to push around a 600 billion dollar tech industry.
Simply put: Piracy is the killer app for Telcoms and consumer electronics industries, unless it's in the Telcoms and consumer electronics.
My theory: I think the Telcoms and friends want to devalue the entertainment industry. They want the same exclusive content that AOL/Time Warner enjoys, but rather aquiring the content via an expensive merger, our friends would much rather buy all that content at commidity prices, or sign exclusive deals to act as the conduit to deliver music and entertainment at competitive prices.
If you really want to figure out who's conspiring what. (1) You have to be realistic (2) You have to determine how it pays off
You mean you didn't get a platform indpendent app when you used the form designer and tried to add an ActiveX control?
What was so hard about developing a platform independant app with J++? It seemed pretty clear to me what was Win32 and what was Java.
1. You don't have to be 100% effective to be effective.
2. Maybe the point is to remind Chinese citizens they can filter any part of the Internet whenever they want. This keeps the censorship precident active, in the event they want to *really* lock down on unfavorable opinions.
3. Maybe they want information to slowly seep into the country to reduce the risk of information shock.
These sort of arguments apply well to content protection schemes. It doesn't have to work 100% to work.
Maybe if I had taking 3 seconds to read his post instead of trying to be clear, I would have understood.
Will you learn not to be such an asshole when you post? Yes, The asshole thing isn't working out, I was really insulting with some Ned Flanders guy (Nice guy, tries to be disarming) and I realized that this was getting out of hand.
I guess I always admired guys who were harshly insulting when I was a kid, because I could never do it myself. I figure I'll tune down the harshness and hatefulness and try to exercise insightful irony (much harder to do)
You wrote:
Isn't that the point of a parody? To show how absurd things would be if taken to extremes? They're bound to be right once in a while.
Spaceballs warned us of this day!!
I wish I knew somebody who installed Linux recently. I'd love to get a story posted on Slashdot
1. Your first 3 sentences were patronizing and condecending
2. Your 'Spaceballs told us this day would come' was meant to be disarming, especially after being patronizing and condecending.
3. You didn't get the joke, your disarming joke conveys NOTHING that would suggest you DID get the joke. Your patronizing insights conveyed EVERYTHING that you didn't get the joke. If anything, your disarming joke vindicated one of your point, "They're bound to be right once in a while."
4. I argue/insult for practise.
5. I didn't need to get shitty with you.
6. I don't want to grow up, but I guess I have to.
7. You seem like a very nice person.
8. Even nice people can be intentionally/inadvertantly patronizing / condescending.
9. I didn't need to get shitty with you.
10. You probably demonstrated one of the nicest ways of correcting someone (esp. the disarming notice)
11. There will always be assholes like me who will interpret your kind criticisms viciously.
12. I didn't need to get shitty with you.
13. I'm sorry
There you go. Not only do you get an apology, but you get vindication, insight into assholes, and knowning you've influenced someone for the better.
Rather than trying to learn the art of being insulting, maybe I should learn the art of being insightfully ironical...
CBS *FILMED* the conversion work - Publicized - Nothing happened
David Koresh Performed the Conversion - Demonstrated - Got into trouble
Now if they reporter had PERFORMED the conversion, I'd say you're on to something.
Are there double standards? Probably.
Did you demonstrate one? No.
Did you make the same mistake as the original poster? Yes.
Will you learn to distinguish between the two? (Insert Your Answer Here)
1. Parodies usually immitate life's dumbest moments so as to demonstrate what NOT to do...
2. In my musings I talk about life immitating a parody (Oppostie of #1)
Can you see WHY you didn't understand my this angle of humor and how you might choke the life out of future jokes my not taking the time to find the irony, or atleast the illusion of irony? (Sometimes the fucking joke is the illusion of irony)
Do you get it now? (Christ, I'm feeling hateful today)
It's ok to publicize flaws in computer networks, you just can't demonstate the flaw if doing so is breaking the law. In this case, it seems like he got permission, so I doubt they could consider this an unauthorized intrusion.
As soon as you mentioned Airport Security I remember the guy who got through with something like a box cutter and announced it. They immediately arrest the guy.
This concludes our lesson on how not to blatently compare apples to oranges.
There's probably a double standard in there somewhere, but you didn't find it.
NBC Executive: What a coicidence! That's the exact code I use on my matched luggage!
What's the world coming to when life immitates parodies immitating life?
Maybe we need a website with a database devoted entirely to giving websites like CapitalOne a hard time for being IE only.
Does such a website exist? Maybe if we got together we could email these people and thier bosses to get them to support Netscape.
Does such a website exist?
You mentioned strong property rights...
I didn't notice that...
That changes everything...
Now can you why comparing pure capitalism to anarchy is a bad idea? Anarchy suggests no legal framework. Use minimal government instead, suggesting anarchy gets guys like me in a fit.
While you're idea might sound neat in theory, you need to add some basic common sense.
- WHERE I AGREE -
1. Our government IS too large.
2. 50% tax rate is way too much.
- WHERE I DISAGREE -
Anarchy isn't 100% pure Capitalism
Go to Africa if you want to see your extreme form of capitalism at work or any other fucked up area on the earth where governments don't protect people from enterprising warlords.
Real Capitalism needs a Foundation
First you need a legal framework that applies to everybody equally. Then you'll need institutions to enforce and execute the law. You'll need to make sure these institutions are resistant to corruption, especially when the goal of corruption is to circumvent the law. If you don't, you end up modeling yourself after many 3rd world countries.
Here's the real truth: You don't have a clue as to why capitalism has worked in many first world countries and why it's done very little in many third-world countries.
Here's a hint: Turn off the pundant on the radio, he's probably a divisive asshole who's just trying to get ratings by making his listeners feel vindicated when he explains the real simple answer.
You'll figure it out when you realize you're not as smart as you think you are.
Lastly, Realizing your stupidity is the first step towards getting smarter. I should know. I got this smart by realizing my stupidity A LOT. Sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but give it a shot! Admit to yourself you don't have a fucking clue, and you're really making up answers.
Actually, I started this handle for a joke I posted in an experimental aircraft story...
Glad to see there are people like you who have a sick sense of humor.
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke...
That'll teach you to mod down my critical friend!
Mod me down, I'll just post again. I got 50 Karma to burn...
Serious, Why bother marking him down anyway? It's a waste of moderation points to mod up the good stuff.
Maybe us video gamers can team up with drunk drivers. Our new slogan can be:
I don't know about you, but I always play Grand Theft Auto 3 better when I'm drunk.
Go ahead, mod me down. Fuck you if you can't take a joke.