If I had mod points I'd give them to you. Whenever some naive free market idealist gets modded +5 saying the problem is government granted monopolies (a particularly insidious claim due to its speciousness and thus its ability to deceive the uninformed) and the solution is the enticingly simplistic "deregulation" (ignorning hundreds of years of precedent with similar public utilities and the successes of other first world nations that acknowledge this fact), it drives me mad.
A public funding system like a $100 per-citizen tax rebate (Lessig has proposed something similar) for use in campaign contributions would easily quell any fears of not being funded (if everyone who voted in 2012 saves themselves $100 and uses their rebate, it ends up being quite a bit of money--more than was spent in 2012 I believe). This is the kind of reform the backed candidates are being "sent" to enact. Not to mention, being responsible for such landmark reform is sure to keep you popular with your constituents for many terms. And I think you're a bit too cynical to think all of the backed candidates will be so self-serving, unless they were chosen from the current crop of money hustlers (you'd have to be an idiot to select from them and Lessig is not an idiot).
Also, it's very odd that you consider small dollar donations from a large number of average citizens as a "power grab" in the same sense as large (massive) dollar donations from a small number of citizens (as is the case with The Heritage Foundation). If the former is anything of a power grab, it's power that ought to be restored to them.
Right, an individual passing through the revolving door does not represent a conflict of interest, but rather just the hiring of experienced/knowledgeable individuals. Here are some cherry picked statistics to prove my point/s
Please tell me this isn't where the PR spin is headed, because I fully believe people will buy it (if it's repeated often enough and made tribal). I mean, the spindoctors have already convinced too many people that bribery is "free speech" and 99% of climate scientists are frauds.
Vim has to be one of my favorite programs but I rarely use it for any "ambitious" coding project because it lacks critical features that an IDE provides (the plugins don't cover these gaps either). Right now I'm using Netbeans with the jVi plugin (provides a subset of common vim behavior) for c++ programming and it works well, but if an IDE plugin could simply embed instances of vim into the program itself and have it work seamlessly with the existing IDE features (e.g. advanced code understanding of inheritance hierarchies and type deduction) that would be the ideal. With this in mind, the following from the website sounds really promising:
First class support for embedding
Since Neovim will be provide the interface to interacting with text, any program will be able to tap into this potential and be able to include Neovim commands right in the application.
What significance does death being natural have here? It is your own assumption that something which is natural is automatically good or at the very least should be followed. Now I completely agree that the preservation of many of the things I care about on Earth is maintained by nature in somewhat of a fragile equilibrium, but there are far too many exceptions to make such a generalization. "Nature could decide" to incinerate all of it in the next 10 minutes--is that a good thing to you? And our tendency to fuck things up simply means we need to be more careful. Not to mention there are creatures on Earth that do not undergo senescence, so even assuming the appeal to nature was ever a valid reason for anything, it would be somewhat wrong to apply it here.
...to fear death so much we need to somehow eradicate it.
Why are you so certain that the desire for an extended lifespan is motivated purely by fear? For example, I personally accept that my death by old age is quite likely and I've decided that what is inevitable (or at least is quite likely to be) is not worth worrying about any more than is innate. However, I would still like to live longer simply because life is so enjoyable. There are so many things to experience that I'll never have the time to, so many things to learn, so many things to explore (on this planet and otherwise, in the mind...), etc etc. I want to live longer not out of negative emotions, but of positive. You state that death motivates you to live your life to the fullest--that's great if that's what works for you, but not all of us need that. We'll go on living just as happy as otherwise (and perhaps less anxiously than you) because life on its own can be just great.
Lastly, you keep describing those that fear death as immature babies. What relevance does this have? Even assuming these people are "immature" and childlike, this lends no reason to the debate--it's pointless. Or is this how you intend to motivate them to agree with you? By attacking their egos? "I've given up on the desire to live longer because someone on the internet called me a baby!" How about using some reason.
I still use Google Voice because it's free (well, I suppose it's not free because they are collecting my data, but I have a feeling the carriers are doing the same anyway). How can you beat that? Sure, I'm only able to use it at home and through WiFi hot spots, so it's only a little bit better than a landline, but I'm not getting gouged by the cell phone companies for a couple of GB a month.
Now someone will respond to this and tell me what great cell phone service they have that's not available in my area and is still garbage for the price ("See? The system works for me. Why isn't it working for you?")
...is still garbage. We Americans should not feel at all good about how badly we're getting fleeced by the telecoms just because someone else has it worse, just as an American McDonald's worker shouldn't brush off their own depressing work conditions after witnessing work conditions in the third world. That kind of thinking is a race to the bottom.
Americans will not see fair prices for phone service until we accept that utilities like phone service are a natural monopoly and that the government must step in to to force sufficiently competitive conditions. Break up the oligopoly. Force them to act as common carriers. Separate the ownership of transportation mediums from those providing the actual service and compel them to allow many companies to compete over the same medium. Subsidize infrastructure build out where it is not normally profitable (like any other utility). Forbid vertical integration with, e.g., content companies so to avoid the blatant conflict of interest. Stop outlawing municipal broadband. So many other countries have made these exact structural changes with extremely successful results, much in the way that many of these same countries have very successful healthcare systems that the US also refuses to emulate.
Of course none of these changes will occur unless we take care of our corrupt political system ( http://www.represent.us/ ). Politicians will claim there is "no political will" which translates to "I don't want to be decimated by the telecoms' campaign money and PR offensives next election" and perhaps "maybe I'd like to quadruple my salary by becoming a telecom lobbyist in my later years". But I'm digressing...
And the "As a single parent" line sounds like something from your typical shill script and is rather out of place on Slashdot--especially since it's coming from an AC.
Nice! I should have mine setup today (I can't actually download it because the single DL is much larger than my monthly bandwidth allotment, so I need to *drive* to an ssh server I've setup... 'mericuh internet). I'm trying to remember what collections are especially good because I haven't played in a while (should change now that it's available on linux), so assuming my memory is still good:
And there are many other great ones which aren't coming to mind yet. Some of the above--at least in my opinion--are better than the SP or coop campaign (at least in terms of how challenging and interesting the puzzles are)
Haven't been able to try it out yet (poor internet), but according to the following link "...users have access to the Workshop and can download any custom map they choose". http://news.softpedia.com/news...
This is the game I was waiting to show up on linux. The vanilla single player and coop campaigns are far from the best aspect of Portal 2 now. The custom maps are where it's at and the ingame custom maps browser, downloader, rating system, and "series subscription" functionality remove all of the pains of hunting for the perfect maps. I highly recommend people check out the custom maps if they're fans of puzzles--there are some extremely challenging ones that will test both your mind and your agility. And if coop is your thing there are some excellent custom maps for that too.
It's not just the NSA. It's evident in forums across the web that there is quick, coordinated trolling of any discussion of climate change or health insurance - the main targets of the Koch Bros' web of disinformation front groups.
And today all of these malicious tactics are considered fair game under the innocent sounding classification of "Public Relations".
If anyone is interested in how this plays out in the context of for-profit health insurance (and; really; the tactics are transferable to any area) they should read Wendell Potter's book "Deadly Spin." Potter was a former PR executive at some of the largest health insurance companies in America (and one of many carefully orchestrating the nonsensical fear of any sort of healthcare reform) until his conscience forced him to quit. After reading his book I am convinced that the ways in which wealth can be used to shape public opinion in America are just as much of a problem as the corrupting effect of money in politics.
Anyone who signed this petition knew we'd get the typical PR response that's devoid of any content--that's not what we were seeking in the first place. The benefit from these petitions is that (1) it may draw public attention to this issue and get a mention in the mainstream media and (2) they cost each individual about 5 seconds of time and a mouse click. And that's what we may get, so there may be at least some measure of victory in this.
If the vast majority of Americans knew how badly they were getting fleeced by the telecoms compared to other first world countries, they would be more concerned. Unfortunately the media has no incentive to cover such issues because (1) real journalism isn't as profitable as entertainment and news outlets are no longer required to cover issues of public importance (see e.g. the Fairness Doctrine) or (2) it conflicts with the propaganda.
So here we have Berin Szoka--the president of a libertarian "think-tank" (TechFreedom... yes, another one with "freedom" in its name) that receives its funding from broadband providers--favoring a policy position that is consistent with the interests of the big players in the telecommunication industry. Namely Comcast, which sees its dual position as both a conduit and content provider as a means to further its gouging of consumers (this is why they bought NBC Universal and are gobbling up sports broadcasting rights throughout the country). Well, color me fucking surprised! From TFA:
Disclosures: TechFreedom is supported by foundations, web companies, and both broadband and edge providers
According to TechFreedom's Form 990, TechFreedom has received $1,056,560 in contributions that were not from government grants, federated campaigns, membership dues, or fundraising events. As a 501c3 TechFreedom does not need to disclose exactly who is making these contributions and in what individual amounts, but by now it should be obvious where the money is coming from. See here: http://990finder.foundationcen...
And prior to TechFreedom, Berin Szoka was part of The Progress And... Freedom... Foundation, a "market-oriented think tank" that received funding from the telecommunications industry. From http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind... :
According to Common Cause.org, The Progress and Freedom Foundation’s list of corporate donors "reads like a who’s who list of the telecommunications industry. Telephone companies like AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon; technology companies like Microsoft and Intel; telecom trade associations like the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the Entertainment Software Association; cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner; cell phone companies like T-Mobile and Sprint; and broadcasters like Clear Channel Communications and Viacom19 have all helped fill PFF’s coffers to the tune of a $3 million per year operating budget."
These organizations really shouldn't be considered "think tanks" at all. They're just avenues through which crony capitalists can affect legislators/policy and public opinion by leveraging their massive stores of wealth. This is not "free speech." This is free speech amplified by wealth, which is wrong. Without their contributors' backing, they would just be a bunch of noisy shmucks that no one listens to--just people like you and I.
It doesn't even matter whether or not people like Berin Szoka truly believe the bullshit that comes out of their mouths and onto paper/keyboards. In either case the only reason they're even given an ear is because there's a shitload of money backing them. This is not how a democracy should be run. Wealth should not determine the penetration of your message.
Yup, nothing to see here. They used some water but--look over here!--the wells are producing so handsomely now and will continue to do so into the future, making the PR company I work fo--I mean the surrounding community so rich! Plus, the water trucks are gone now so that's in the past--what was the problem with them again?
Nice Slashdot, just take this AC on his word and vote +5 insightful. Not like the natural gas industry would hire shills to post hand-waving comments like this all over the internet. I'm not saying it's impossible that the poster is legit but in this context slashdot should really know better than to vote up an AC making such a comment..
The movie is an unbiased exploration of the implications of technology rather than a taboo romance. The romance itself is necessary because the viewer must realize that there is no reason that artificial intelligence can't capture all of the traits we consider human, and having the viewer empathize with Theodore is the best way to do this in a movie. If you're looking for a heartwarming love story, this certainly isn't one.
If you're interested in the effect such technology might have on society itself, I recommend the movie. If you're just interested in technology, skip it.
They consider Verizon Wireless a competitor. Which is bullshit because Comcast and Verizon Wireless advertise each others' services. Competitors rarely do this. This is of course aside from the obvious reason that it is physically impossible for wireless broadband to come anywhere close to the quality of landline cable or fiber.
But you probably know by now that they don't actually believe their own arguments. Debating their validity with them is a waste of energy because this is not a symptom of their poor judgement but rather of corruption--we live in a plutocracy. It's only going to get worse, and Americans are so misinformed that there's a chance they won't ever realize how bad they've got it.
If you want real competition any time soon, the only choice you have is to move somewhere else--for instance, Europe. You'll probably be happier there anyway.
While still appalled, I'm just no longer surprised. A cable lobbyist passes through the revolving door, Obama/ does his usual PR game (in addition to the usual industry bought PR), the corporate media barely makes a peep about it (or presents a misleading view of it) despite the blatant conflict of interest and despite reputable public interest advocates sounding the alarm, and then the ex-lobbyist advocates for anti-competitive practices that will hurt the vast majority of Americans and further enrich the plutocrats he formerly worked on the behalf of (just like the public interest advocates said he would). And just watch this guy's compensation skyrocket when he transitions back through the revolving door into private industry--he will be rewarded well.
And it's the same story over and over again. The US continues to degenerate into a plutocracy as a result of rampant corruption (*legal* corruption, but still a corruption of the intent of the system itself--the intent being to serve the public good). More and more Americans seem to be arriving at this conclusion, but the vast majority still gets its "news" from the corporate media and is thus completely uninformed and misled. The corporate media is quite happy with this situation due to the vast monies being spent on political advertising, and candidates that actually have the public interest in mind do not even end up on the radar because getting coverage means competing with the wealthy-donor funded candidates (in other words, it's too expensive, e.g. a senate seat is usually around $4 million).
Only broad generalities are being stated on the promotional page, but are they trying to fuse the best of both PC and console worlds? (and then some?) My overly optimistic side interprets it as something like this:
For the user, you have both the reliability of it "just working" (like a console, standard hardware) and absolutely no limitations on customization (e.g. run your own linux applications, install a different linux distro, run the OS on different hardware altogether, change the hardware, run an indie game that is not on Steam but still conforms to the standard hardware, do that thing you've always wanted to do with your PS3/360 but couldn't because they're greedy fucking assholes and/or are afraid of getting sued). And just as important for console users, you also have simplicity beyond "just getting things to work": a standard UI tailored to gaming (where everyone is connected, voice chat, a marketplace, "cloud", etc etc).
For developers, you have consistency (meaning no more custom tailoring your game to tons of different hardware configurations, controllers, etc etc, and also the ability to milk the most out of the hardware), a partially community-run marketplace owned by people that aren't assholes (and the ability to, if necessary, operate outside of it while remaining on the same platform), flexibility (nothing stopping you from adding in Oculus Rift support or whatever else), and an OS specifically optimized for gaming.
That's quite optimistic though. But if this is what they're going for--or at least something close to it--it could change everything (and upset a lot of established interests). And supposing this ideal were to come about and SteamOS gains traction, this could put a lot of power in the hands of a single company. The temptation to be greedy could be too great--especially as management inevitably changes. In other words, I'm hoping they'll proactive about putting in safeguards against their future selves, because my optimistic side (which, I must say, is usually wrong) says this could be big.
There is an alarmingly widespread mindset on slashdot that seems to suggest that every action taken by humans must be solely motivated by improving the "success" of our species (where "success" is resource acquisition, improvements in technology, whatever else increases the expanse and longevity of our species), as if we're in some galaxy-wide race to proliferate ourselves. But increasing the expanse and longevity of humanity does not necessarily mean we will be happy (the only thing which humans truly seek to maximize, even if we're quite often ineffectual at doing so). It only has the *potential* to create a condition for it, and while it is certainly a worthy pursuit for this reason, to make it one's sole pursuit (or even something close to it) is absolute insanity (as one never stops to do that which makes them happy). Life is not a fucking RTS.
So when we talk of sending humans to europa or mars, there is no miscalculation about e.g. the inefficiency of using a human body in those environments when compared to that of a robot. The fact is that sending humans is *the entire point of it*. We want to observe the *human experience*--it is the next best thing to experiencing it ourselves (humans have this wonderful thing called empathy, the ability to (approximately) experience something through another... well, most humans do). The satisfaction of curiosity, the overcoming of all of the challenges and risks, the feeling of being on the frontier of human exploration, etc etc all experienced through another--this is why we want to send humans. In other words, there is no reason other than the most fundamental which humans possess (it makes us happy) and there is nothing as sufficient--it is what people live for.
Now perhaps this "human experience" and "empathy" stuff doesn't matter to you (given that you're reading this I suspect you're lying or in denial, but so be it), or perhaps you really don't think the costs/risks are worth it (i.e. you don't think it will make you happy). Fine then, don't support the effort and move along. Just don't try to claim there is some sort of objective foolishness to sending humans instead of robots, as that simply means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and why so many want to send humans in the first place (and I could understand why one would be upset with NASA or other taxpayer funded efforts using humans for this purpose, but in that context you have your vote).
"Stop! Just stop with the global warming news already! We were wrong, OK? OK guys?! Just because we chose to believe the "research" of our libertarian and conservative "think tanks" funded directly by the petroleum industry and its investors (or by 501(c)(3)s to conceal the donors), and then ended up falling for the same PR tactics used and perfected by the tobacco industry (e.g. front groups, industry-propped/-organized "grassroots" movements, misleading media reports, fake controversies, etc etc) doesn't mean we need to be humiliated like this! First we accepted it was real, then we accepted it was man made, and now we've accepted that it's actually a problem. Just how many more stages of denial must we pass through before you're all satisfied?! Now those same "sources" that deceived us before (but for some insane reason we still listen to) are essentially telling us that "there's nothing we can do about it anyway" and "by golly, it's actually a good thing, so burn away!"--must we concede on these obvious lies too? Where does it end! I swear to god, there's a slashdot article almost every day on the negative effects of climate change and every time we see a new one it's like a pie in the fa-*splat* oh god now yosemite is on the verge of burning..."
- The inner thoughts of a depressingly large portion of slashdotters
The ITIF is an industry sock puppet. It should be no surprise that they do not disclose all of their funding and that almost every stance taken by the organization aligns with the interests of the telecom industry.
The kind of research produced by the ITIF is tainted as long as they don’t reveal who is paying for these research reports. As Stop the Cap! readers have learned well, following corporate money usually helps expose the real agenda of these so-called “think tanks,” which are created to distort reality and quietly echo the agenda of their paymasters with a veneer of independence and credibility.
What is scary is that congressmen actually take the ITIF's word seriously (should be no surprise why).
Agreed. It is "corruption" in the sense that *the intent of the institution* (e.g. to act in the public's interest) is corrupted. Just because it is legal does not mean the system is working as intended.
But regardless, anyone who justifies their or some else's heinous behavior with a "because it is legal" argument is too far gone to be worth your time anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had mod points I'd give them to you. Whenever some naive free market idealist gets modded +5 saying the problem is government granted monopolies (a particularly insidious claim due to its speciousness and thus its ability to deceive the uninformed) and the solution is the enticingly simplistic "deregulation" (ignorning hundreds of years of precedent with similar public utilities and the successes of other first world nations that acknowledge this fact), it drives me mad.
A public funding system like a $100 per-citizen tax rebate (Lessig has proposed something similar) for use in campaign contributions would easily quell any fears of not being funded (if everyone who voted in 2012 saves themselves $100 and uses their rebate, it ends up being quite a bit of money--more than was spent in 2012 I believe). This is the kind of reform the backed candidates are being "sent" to enact. Not to mention, being responsible for such landmark reform is sure to keep you popular with your constituents for many terms. And I think you're a bit too cynical to think all of the backed candidates will be so self-serving, unless they were chosen from the current crop of money hustlers (you'd have to be an idiot to select from them and Lessig is not an idiot).
Also, it's very odd that you consider small dollar donations from a large number of average citizens as a "power grab" in the same sense as large (massive) dollar donations from a small number of citizens (as is the case with The Heritage Foundation). If the former is anything of a power grab, it's power that ought to be restored to them.
Right, an individual passing through the revolving door does not represent a conflict of interest, but rather just the hiring of experienced/knowledgeable individuals. Here are some cherry picked statistics to prove my point /s
Please tell me this isn't where the PR spin is headed, because I fully believe people will buy it (if it's repeated often enough and made tribal). I mean, the spindoctors have already convinced too many people that bribery is "free speech" and 99% of climate scientists are frauds.
First class support for embedding
Since Neovim will be provide the interface to interacting with text, any program will be able to tap into this potential and be able to include Neovim commands right in the application.
Death is quite right and quite natural
What significance does death being natural have here? It is your own assumption that something which is natural is automatically good or at the very least should be followed. Now I completely agree that the preservation of many of the things I care about on Earth is maintained by nature in somewhat of a fragile equilibrium, but there are far too many exceptions to make such a generalization. "Nature could decide" to incinerate all of it in the next 10 minutes--is that a good thing to you? And our tendency to fuck things up simply means we need to be more careful. Not to mention there are creatures on Earth that do not undergo senescence, so even assuming the appeal to nature was ever a valid reason for anything, it would be somewhat wrong to apply it here.
...to fear death so much we need to somehow eradicate it.
Why are you so certain that the desire for an extended lifespan is motivated purely by fear? For example, I personally accept that my death by old age is quite likely and I've decided that what is inevitable (or at least is quite likely to be) is not worth worrying about any more than is innate. However, I would still like to live longer simply because life is so enjoyable. There are so many things to experience that I'll never have the time to, so many things to learn, so many things to explore (on this planet and otherwise, in the mind...), etc etc. I want to live longer not out of negative emotions, but of positive. You state that death motivates you to live your life to the fullest--that's great if that's what works for you, but not all of us need that. We'll go on living just as happy as otherwise (and perhaps less anxiously than you) because life on its own can be just great.
Lastly, you keep describing those that fear death as immature babies. What relevance does this have? Even assuming these people are "immature" and childlike, this lends no reason to the debate--it's pointless. Or is this how you intend to motivate them to agree with you? By attacking their egos? "I've given up on the desire to live longer because someone on the internet called me a baby!" How about using some reason.
I still use Google Voice because it's free (well, I suppose it's not free because they are collecting my data, but I have a feeling the carriers are doing the same anyway). How can you beat that? Sure, I'm only able to use it at home and through WiFi hot spots, so it's only a little bit better than a landline, but I'm not getting gouged by the cell phone companies for a couple of GB a month.
Now someone will respond to this and tell me what great cell phone service they have that's not available in my area and is still garbage for the price ("See? The system works for me. Why isn't it working for you?")
...is still garbage. We Americans should not feel at all good about how badly we're getting fleeced by the telecoms just because someone else has it worse, just as an American McDonald's worker shouldn't brush off their own depressing work conditions after witnessing work conditions in the third world. That kind of thinking is a race to the bottom.
Americans will not see fair prices for phone service until we accept that utilities like phone service are a natural monopoly and that the government must step in to to force sufficiently competitive conditions. Break up the oligopoly. Force them to act as common carriers. Separate the ownership of transportation mediums from those providing the actual service and compel them to allow many companies to compete over the same medium. Subsidize infrastructure build out where it is not normally profitable (like any other utility). Forbid vertical integration with, e.g., content companies so to avoid the blatant conflict of interest. Stop outlawing municipal broadband. So many other countries have made these exact structural changes with extremely successful results, much in the way that many of these same countries have very successful healthcare systems that the US also refuses to emulate.
Of course none of these changes will occur unless we take care of our corrupt political system ( http://www.represent.us/ ). Politicians will claim there is "no political will" which translates to "I don't want to be decimated by the telecoms' campaign money and PR offensives next election" and perhaps "maybe I'd like to quadruple my salary by becoming a telecom lobbyist in my later years". But I'm digressing...
And the "As a single parent" line sounds like something from your typical shill script and is rather out of place on Slashdot--especially since it's coming from an AC.
Nice! I should have mine setup today (I can't actually download it because the single DL is much larger than my monthly bandwidth allotment, so I need to *drive* to an ssh server I've setup... 'mericuh internet). I'm trying to remember what collections are especially good because I haven't played in a while (should change now that it's available on linux), so assuming my memory is still good:
Designed For Danger Collection http://steamcommunity.com/work...
12 Angry Tests Collection http://steamcommunity.com/work...
Dilapidation Collection (if I recall correctly this is of especially high quality) http://steamcommunity.com/work...
Killing Machine Collection http://steamcommunity.com/work...
And there are many other great ones which aren't coming to mind yet. Some of the above--at least in my opinion--are better than the SP or coop campaign (at least in terms of how challenging and interesting the puzzles are)
Haven't been able to try it out yet (poor internet), but according to the following link "...users have access to the Workshop and can download any custom map they choose". http://news.softpedia.com/news...
This is the game I was waiting to show up on linux. The vanilla single player and coop campaigns are far from the best aspect of Portal 2 now. The custom maps are where it's at and the ingame custom maps browser, downloader, rating system, and "series subscription" functionality remove all of the pains of hunting for the perfect maps. I highly recommend people check out the custom maps if they're fans of puzzles--there are some extremely challenging ones that will test both your mind and your agility. And if coop is your thing there are some excellent custom maps for that too.
It's not just the NSA. It's evident in forums across the web that there is quick, coordinated trolling of any discussion of climate change or health insurance - the main targets of the Koch Bros' web of disinformation front groups.
And today all of these malicious tactics are considered fair game under the innocent sounding classification of "Public Relations".
If anyone is interested in how this plays out in the context of for-profit health insurance (and; really; the tactics are transferable to any area) they should read Wendell Potter's book "Deadly Spin." Potter was a former PR executive at some of the largest health insurance companies in America (and one of many carefully orchestrating the nonsensical fear of any sort of healthcare reform) until his conscience forced him to quit. After reading his book I am convinced that the ways in which wealth can be used to shape public opinion in America are just as much of a problem as the corrupting effect of money in politics.
Anyone who signed this petition knew we'd get the typical PR response that's devoid of any content--that's not what we were seeking in the first place. The benefit from these petitions is that (1) it may draw public attention to this issue and get a mention in the mainstream media and (2) they cost each individual about 5 seconds of time and a mouse click. And that's what we may get, so there may be at least some measure of victory in this.
If the vast majority of Americans knew how badly they were getting fleeced by the telecoms compared to other first world countries, they would be more concerned. Unfortunately the media has no incentive to cover such issues because (1) real journalism isn't as profitable as entertainment and news outlets are no longer required to cover issues of public importance (see e.g. the Fairness Doctrine) or (2) it conflicts with the propaganda.
Disclosures: TechFreedom is supported by foundations, web companies, and both broadband and edge providers
According to TechFreedom's Form 990, TechFreedom has received $1,056,560 in contributions that were not from government grants, federated campaigns, membership dues, or fundraising events. As a 501c3 TechFreedom does not need to disclose exactly who is making these contributions and in what individual amounts, but by now it should be obvious where the money is coming from. See here: http://990finder.foundationcen...
... Freedom ... Foundation, a "market-oriented think tank" that received funding from the telecommunications industry. From http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind... :
And prior to TechFreedom, Berin Szoka was part of The Progress And
According to Common Cause.org, The Progress and Freedom Foundation’s list of corporate donors "reads like a who’s who list of the telecommunications industry. Telephone companies like AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon; technology companies like Microsoft and Intel; telecom trade associations like the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the Entertainment Software Association; cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner; cell phone companies like T-Mobile and Sprint; and broadcasters like Clear Channel Communications and Viacom19 have all helped fill PFF’s coffers to the tune of a $3 million per year operating budget."
These organizations really shouldn't be considered "think tanks" at all. They're just avenues through which crony capitalists can affect legislators/policy and public opinion by leveraging their massive stores of wealth. This is not "free speech." This is free speech amplified by wealth, which is wrong. Without their contributors' backing, they would just be a bunch of noisy shmucks that no one listens to--just people like you and I.
It doesn't even matter whether or not people like Berin Szoka truly believe the bullshit that comes out of their mouths and onto paper/keyboards. In either case the only reason they're even given an ear is because there's a shitload of money backing them. This is not how a democracy should be run. Wealth should not determine the penetration of your message.
Yup, nothing to see here. They used some water but--look over here!--the wells are producing so handsomely now and will continue to do so into the future, making the PR company I work fo--I mean the surrounding community so rich! Plus, the water trucks are gone now so that's in the past--what was the problem with them again?
Nice Slashdot, just take this AC on his word and vote +5 insightful. Not like the natural gas industry would hire shills to post hand-waving comments like this all over the internet. I'm not saying it's impossible that the poster is legit but in this context slashdot should really know better than to vote up an AC making such a comment..
Based on your comment I recommend you watch the movie.
The movie is an unbiased exploration of the implications of technology rather than a taboo romance. The romance itself is necessary because the viewer must realize that there is no reason that artificial intelligence can't capture all of the traits we consider human, and having the viewer empathize with Theodore is the best way to do this in a movie. If you're looking for a heartwarming love story, this certainly isn't one.
If you're interested in the effect such technology might have on society itself, I recommend the movie. If you're just interested in technology, skip it.
Right, and this is why the viewer was supposed to make the assumption that the AI had emotions programmed in. No stupidity here.
They consider Verizon Wireless a competitor. Which is bullshit because Comcast and Verizon Wireless advertise each others' services. Competitors rarely do this. This is of course aside from the obvious reason that it is physically impossible for wireless broadband to come anywhere close to the quality of landline cable or fiber.
But you probably know by now that they don't actually believe their own arguments. Debating their validity with them is a waste of energy because this is not a symptom of their poor judgement but rather of corruption--we live in a plutocracy. It's only going to get worse, and Americans are so misinformed that there's a chance they won't ever realize how bad they've got it.
If you want real competition any time soon, the only choice you have is to move somewhere else--for instance, Europe. You'll probably be happier there anyway.
Translation: If you want that merger approved, you'd better pay up.
While still appalled, I'm just no longer surprised. A cable lobbyist passes through the revolving door, Obama/ does his usual PR game (in addition to the usual industry bought PR), the corporate media barely makes a peep about it (or presents a misleading view of it) despite the blatant conflict of interest and despite reputable public interest advocates sounding the alarm, and then the ex-lobbyist advocates for anti-competitive practices that will hurt the vast majority of Americans and further enrich the plutocrats he formerly worked on the behalf of (just like the public interest advocates said he would). And just watch this guy's compensation skyrocket when he transitions back through the revolving door into private industry--he will be rewarded well.
And it's the same story over and over again. The US continues to degenerate into a plutocracy as a result of rampant corruption (*legal* corruption, but still a corruption of the intent of the system itself--the intent being to serve the public good). More and more Americans seem to be arriving at this conclusion, but the vast majority still gets its "news" from the corporate media and is thus completely uninformed and misled. The corporate media is quite happy with this situation due to the vast monies being spent on political advertising, and candidates that actually have the public interest in mind do not even end up on the radar because getting coverage means competing with the wealthy-donor funded candidates (in other words, it's too expensive, e.g. a senate seat is usually around $4 million).
So I'm probably just about as apathetic as any other American, but here's at least a start on a solution: the problem itself, a solution in the works, an online movement to accompany that solution, another related movement, and a motivational speech for these movements.
Only broad generalities are being stated on the promotional page, but are they trying to fuse the best of both PC and console worlds? (and then some?) My overly optimistic side interprets it as something like this:
For the user, you have both the reliability of it "just working" (like a console, standard hardware) and absolutely no limitations on customization (e.g. run your own linux applications, install a different linux distro, run the OS on different hardware altogether, change the hardware, run an indie game that is not on Steam but still conforms to the standard hardware, do that thing you've always wanted to do with your PS3/360 but couldn't because they're greedy fucking assholes and/or are afraid of getting sued). And just as important for console users, you also have simplicity beyond "just getting things to work": a standard UI tailored to gaming (where everyone is connected, voice chat, a marketplace, "cloud", etc etc).
For developers, you have consistency (meaning no more custom tailoring your game to tons of different hardware configurations, controllers, etc etc, and also the ability to milk the most out of the hardware), a partially community-run marketplace owned by people that aren't assholes (and the ability to, if necessary, operate outside of it while remaining on the same platform), flexibility (nothing stopping you from adding in Oculus Rift support or whatever else), and an OS specifically optimized for gaming.
That's quite optimistic though. But if this is what they're going for--or at least something close to it--it could change everything (and upset a lot of established interests). And supposing this ideal were to come about and SteamOS gains traction, this could put a lot of power in the hands of a single company. The temptation to be greedy could be too great--especially as management inevitably changes. In other words, I'm hoping they'll proactive about putting in safeguards against their future selves, because my optimistic side (which, I must say, is usually wrong) says this could be big.
There is an alarmingly widespread mindset on slashdot that seems to suggest that every action taken by humans must be solely motivated by improving the "success" of our species (where "success" is resource acquisition, improvements in technology, whatever else increases the expanse and longevity of our species), as if we're in some galaxy-wide race to proliferate ourselves. But increasing the expanse and longevity of humanity does not necessarily mean we will be happy (the only thing which humans truly seek to maximize, even if we're quite often ineffectual at doing so). It only has the *potential* to create a condition for it, and while it is certainly a worthy pursuit for this reason, to make it one's sole pursuit (or even something close to it) is absolute insanity (as one never stops to do that which makes them happy). Life is not a fucking RTS.
... well, most humans do). The satisfaction of curiosity, the overcoming of all of the challenges and risks, the feeling of being on the frontier of human exploration, etc etc all experienced through another--this is why we want to send humans. In other words, there is no reason other than the most fundamental which humans possess (it makes us happy) and there is nothing as sufficient--it is what people live for.
So when we talk of sending humans to europa or mars, there is no miscalculation about e.g. the inefficiency of using a human body in those environments when compared to that of a robot. The fact is that sending humans is *the entire point of it*. We want to observe the *human experience*--it is the next best thing to experiencing it ourselves (humans have this wonderful thing called empathy, the ability to (approximately) experience something through another
Now perhaps this "human experience" and "empathy" stuff doesn't matter to you (given that you're reading this I suspect you're lying or in denial, but so be it), or perhaps you really don't think the costs/risks are worth it (i.e. you don't think it will make you happy). Fine then, don't support the effort and move along. Just don't try to claim there is some sort of objective foolishness to sending humans instead of robots, as that simply means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and why so many want to send humans in the first place (and I could understand why one would be upset with NASA or other taxpayer funded efforts using humans for this purpose, but in that context you have your vote).
"Stop! Just stop with the global warming news already! We were wrong, OK? OK guys?! Just because we chose to believe the "research" of our libertarian and conservative "think tanks" funded directly by the petroleum industry and its investors (or by 501(c)(3)s to conceal the donors), and then ended up falling for the same PR tactics used and perfected by the tobacco industry (e.g. front groups, industry-propped/-organized "grassroots" movements, misleading media reports, fake controversies, etc etc) doesn't mean we need to be humiliated like this! First we accepted it was real, then we accepted it was man made, and now we've accepted that it's actually a problem. Just how many more stages of denial must we pass through before you're all satisfied?! Now those same "sources" that deceived us before (but for some insane reason we still listen to) are essentially telling us that "there's nothing we can do about it anyway" and "by golly, it's actually a good thing, so burn away!"--must we concede on these obvious lies too? Where does it end! I swear to god, there's a slashdot article almost every day on the negative effects of climate change and every time we see a new one it's like a pie in the fa-*splat* oh god now yosemite is on the verge of burning..."
- The inner thoughts of a depressingly large portion of slashdotters
Here is a good rundown of why you shouldn't trust anything the ITIF says: http://stopthecap.com/2013/02/13/telecom-sock-puppets-attack-industry-critics-facts-dont-matter-only-how-you-interpret-them/
The kind of research produced by the ITIF is tainted as long as they don’t reveal who is paying for these research reports. As Stop the Cap! readers have learned well, following corporate money usually helps expose the real agenda of these so-called “think tanks,” which are created to distort reality and quietly echo the agenda of their paymasters with a veneer of independence and credibility.
What is scary is that congressmen actually take the ITIF's word seriously (should be no surprise why).
Agreed. It is "corruption" in the sense that *the intent of the institution* (e.g. to act in the public's interest) is corrupted. Just because it is legal does not mean the system is working as intended.
But regardless, anyone who justifies their or some else's heinous behavior with a "because it is legal" argument is too far gone to be worth your time anyway.