Oh, okay. I guess I just disagree. To me, punishing people for thoughtcrime is the main abberation, the method and degree of punishment is merely a detail, at least at the level of abstract discussion. I do see what you’re saying, I think we’re just looking at different angles of the problem.
Do I dare even ask what your position is regarding having the FBI crack down on dirty movies?
Sorry, must just be me, but I can’t figure out exactly what it is you’re trying to get across.
Were you just pointing out that death is rather more permanent than imprisonment? I kinda already knew that, and even made some oblique reference to that fact with the “farsight better” remark.
In all seriousness, your comment gave me some slight bit of hope for our country. Sure, we’re probably fucked no matter how many people start realizing what’s been going on, but it’s heartening to know that at least some are. Kudos to you.
Granted, imprisoning people for thoughtcrime is a far sight better than killing them for it. But can it really be considered fundamentally (heh) different in spirit?
Well that’s a relief. Everything else I had read on this matter over the past week indicated that they would be stepping up investigation and prosecution of mainstream pornography.
I suppose that in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court never could come up with a bright line test for whether or not something is in fact pornographic, they figure they can define clearly “deviant” porn now?
That reasoning might hold water if they were actually investing in the bands. In actuality, they’re merely loaning the bands the money. Even if their “investment” tanks the artist is still obligated to repay the loan.
That wasn’t an apostrophe, it was a foot mark. Not sure what measurement he was implying there. Perhaps it was meant to indicate multiple iTune primes?
That was what I thought at first, but by the time I got to the end of the article, I was pretty sure he really did mean to imply that his industry was entitled to a cut of each and every iPod sold. Perhaps I’m wrong, but Bronfman isn’t known for being the brightest crayon in the sandwich, if you get my drift.
An oil industry spokesman said the oil industry should not have to use its content to promote the sale of vehicles for Hummer or anyone else, and not truly share in the profits.
“We are selling our gas through H2, but we dont have a share of H2’s revenue,” he said. We want to share in those revenue streams.
The cash register industry did not return calls seeking comment, but representatives for the tobacco industry are reported to be participating in high level talks with the AMA.
As I write this I have to be careful of wording so that in 5 years it doesn't come back and bite me as some sort of evidence of incitement to violence.
I agree with most of what you’ve said in this thread (although I haven’t gotten to the bottom of it, you may yet surprise me). But I take issue with the “content to be ruled” part: I consider myself to have fairly healthy views about society and government (but then again who doesn’t?) and am quite content to be governed. However, I also consider being extremely selective about who governs us to be a very healthy trait. In fact, I’ve always seen the further development and reinforcement of that selectiveness to be one of the fundamental aims of American society.
Is there any way that those of us with enough modifier keys can type esoteric symbology directly, or should I get used to posting as HTML with entities scattered about?
I mean that last year I could type "inch marks" and they showed up as "inch marks." I could type “quotation marks” and they showed up as “quotation marks.” Today if I type either "inch" or “quotation” marks they show up as "inch marks." The same is/was true for other characters, although I haven’t experimented much since the Great CSS Enabling. The em dash started rendering as two dashes, the elipsis as three periods, etc.
Here is a screenshot of me previewing this comment so you can see what I mean. That was after having directly typed those characters. If I switch to HTML I can tag up my text and make it look like what you’re reading. Until something changed earlier this year, I didn’t have to do that (unless I was posting from Winders, as I’m not 1337(sp?) enough to memorize all the four digit opcodes).
But all that aside, I wasn’t actually bitching. Just taking the chance to ask some who’d actually know. I don’t mind a good bowl of tag soup every now and now; but it was nice being able to simply type correctly. I find it helps to make up for not writing well.
A similar question in another thread I read yesterday elicited a response of digg.com being a good potential hangout for disaffected slashbots. Haven't checked it out in depth yet, but it looks promising. Of course, the main question is whether it can reach the critical mass of active userbase to make the magic happen.
But if ya just want some nasty gutter style hand to hand combat, dailyrotten.com has put up forums. Browse a thread there on a controversial topic, and it makes this place seem like the Mother's Day edition of Fresh Air.
We already forced HTML 4.01 strict compliance on comments six months ago.
Is that why us Mac-using* typographical snobs lost the ability to use actual quote marks and all that jazz?
*yes, I know you can type the full ASCII character set from Windows, but it takes a certain level of masochism that even anal retentive typographers can't usually maintain for very long. Not sure at all how convoluted it is for Linux users.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, okay. I guess I just disagree. To me, punishing people for thoughtcrime is the main abberation, the method and degree of punishment is merely a detail, at least at the level of abstract discussion. I do see what you’re saying, I think we’re just looking at different angles of the problem.
Do I dare even ask what your position is regarding having the FBI crack down on dirty movies?
Sorry, must just be me, but I can’t figure out exactly what it is you’re trying to get across.
Were you just pointing out that death is rather more permanent than imprisonment? I kinda already knew that, and even made some oblique reference to that fact with the “farsight better” remark.
In all seriousness, your comment gave me some slight bit of hope for our country. Sure, we’re probably fucked no matter how many people start realizing what’s been going on, but it’s heartening to know that at least some are. Kudos to you.
Other than the War On Poverty, have we ever given up on any of these unwinnable wars against troublesome concepts?
Granted, imprisoning people for thoughtcrime is a far sight better than killing them for it. But can it really be considered fundamentally (heh) different in spirit?
So it’s only illegal if you pull out?
Well that’s a relief. Everything else I had read on this matter over the past week indicated that they would be stepping up investigation and prosecution of mainstream pornography.
I suppose that in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court never could come up with a bright line test for whether or not something is in fact pornographic, they figure they can define clearly “deviant” porn now?
This oughta be interesting.
Yeah, I started to change that to be more specific, but I figured everybody here would get my point so I went for brevity instead.
That reasoning might hold water if they were actually investing in the bands. In actuality, they’re merely loaning the bands the money. Even if their “investment” tanks the artist is still obligated to repay the loan.
That wasn’t an apostrophe, it was a foot mark. Not sure what measurement he was implying there. Perhaps it was meant to indicate multiple iTune primes?
What about songs that should have fallen into the public domain by now? How much should they cost?
That was what I thought at first, but by the time I got to the end of the article, I was pretty sure he really did mean to imply that his industry was entitled to a cut of each and every iPod sold. Perhaps I’m wrong, but Bronfman isn’t known for being the brightest crayon in the sandwich, if you get my drift.
An oil industry spokesman said the oil industry should not have to use its content to promote the sale of vehicles for Hummer or anyone else, and not truly share in the profits.
“We are selling our gas through H2, but we dont have a share of H2’s revenue,” he said. We want to share in those revenue streams.
The cash register industry did not return calls seeking comment, but representatives for the tobacco industry are reported to be participating in high level talks with the AMA.
As I write this I have to be careful of wording so that in 5 years it doesn't come back and bite me as some sort of evidence of incitement to violence.
Oh, it’s not just me? Whew, what a relief!
If it was me, i would be going out of my not to look suspicous.
*shudder*
I agree with most of what you’ve said in this thread (although I haven’t gotten to the bottom of it, you may yet surprise me). But I take issue with the “content to be ruled” part: I consider myself to have fairly healthy views about society and government (but then again who doesn’t?) and am quite content to be governed. However, I also consider being extremely selective about who governs us to be a very healthy trait. In fact, I’ve always seen the further development and reinforcement of that selectiveness to be one of the fundamental aims of American society.
Yeah, probably just semantics. As you were then.
If by “software” you mean “MP3 files” and by “release” you mean “upload to a web server,” then yes, that might just work.
This is clearly in violation of the Clear and Non-Misleading Bill Naming Act
I call bullshit. If that were a real law, its name would be a backronym.
Just because it worked like you liked before doesn't mean it was done "correctly".
That’s quite true. But in this case, I feel that the way I liked also happened to be the correct way.
There is no 100% solution to guessing the encoding of non-ASCII characters, so it's a real mixed bag.
If they’re proper Unicode characters, I wouldn’t think there‘d be too much guesswork involved.
Is there any way that those of us with enough modifier keys can type esoteric symbology directly, or should I get used to posting as HTML with entities scattered about?
Slashdot is perfectly usable in Netscape 4.
Hmm, maybe I should grab a copy of that. Because I find slashdot to be a useless time sink in Firefox 1.5.
I'm not sure what "actual quotes marks" you mean
I mean that last year I could type "inch marks" and they showed up as "inch marks." I could type “quotation marks” and they showed up as “quotation marks.” Today if I type either "inch" or “quotation” marks they show up as "inch marks." The same is/was true for other characters, although I haven’t experimented much since the Great CSS Enabling. The em dash started rendering as two dashes, the elipsis as three periods, etc.
Here is a screenshot of me previewing this comment so you can see what I mean. That was after having directly typed those characters. If I switch to HTML I can tag up my text and make it look like what you’re reading. Until something changed earlier this year, I didn’t have to do that (unless I was posting from Winders, as I’m not 1337(sp?) enough to memorize all the four digit opcodes).
But all that aside, I wasn’t actually bitching. Just taking the chance to ask some who’d actually know. I don’t mind a good bowl of tag soup every now and now; but it was nice being able to simply type correctly. I find it helps to make up for not writing well.
Also, the order of the buttons has changed
Oh good, it's not just me.
is that to get us double checking
If they wanted to do that, you'd think they'd simply not show a Submit button until after the first Preview.
A similar question in another thread I read yesterday elicited a response of digg.com being a good potential hangout for disaffected slashbots. Haven't checked it out in depth yet, but it looks promising. Of course, the main question is whether it can reach the critical mass of active userbase to make the magic happen.
But if ya just want some nasty gutter style hand to hand combat, dailyrotten.com has put up forums. Browse a thread there on a controversial topic, and it makes this place seem like the Mother's Day edition of Fresh Air.
We already forced HTML 4.01 strict compliance on comments six months ago.
Is that why us Mac-using* typographical snobs lost the ability to use actual quote marks and all that jazz?
*yes, I know you can type the full ASCII character set from Windows, but it takes a certain level of masochism that even anal retentive typographers can't usually maintain for very long. Not sure at all how convoluted it is for Linux users.