Those wily Slashdot puppetmasters have slyly undermined the resistance to their corruption by showcasing to such breathtakingly lame attacks.
What else can explain linking to an article that calls VA a "software company" in "direct competition" with Red Hat, and which implies that VA didn't have a community stock offering like Red Hat's. Why else would they select an article that renders itself easily dismissable by blithely asserting that there is no potential conflict of intrest between Lycos and Hotwired?
Only to discredit their attackers! But their sinister scheme must not succeed--onward, freedom fighters!
I read another interview (I'm afraid I don't remember where) where he talked about how good stories are worthwhile and satisfying, they're just not what Id does well; he held up (any guesses?) Half-Life as an example of Id makes the engine, someone else produces the compelling plot, everyone's happy. Struck me as a very reasonable position.
You make your case well, but I have a few questions/objections.
To object to the doctrine that homosexuality is acceptable is not the same as the popular fundie belief in coordinated gay conspiracy.
You're right that schools teach some values, but not others. Is there really another way possible, though?
I view it sort of like operating systems (yeah, I know--talking about computers on Slashdot--unheard of!). You need a kernel and basic device drivers to make the thing usable (you need to punish theft, cheating, violence, and exessively disruptive behavior), but the rest of the system should be as modular and user-configurable as possible (the rest can be left to parents).
Now, it's true that most schools do go further and try to teach the value of tolerance of difference, which a great many people disapprove of (though they'll usually phrase their disapproval in more palatable ways). I think it's at least arguable that this is a part of discouraging disruption of the learning process. So long as public schools accept students regardless of orientation, ethnicity, etc., a certain minimal level of tolerance is necessary to allow the school's primary business of classroom education to take place.
I tend to have faith in the marketplace of ideas--the ability of the better concepts to to rise to the top when all are given their say. This makes me much more sanguine about children being exposed to "dangerous" concepts than many are.
How do you extrapolate from your religious code to the issue at hand? Is it necessary to block access to gay culture websites, or do you have faith in your children to make an informed choice for themselves?
As for the merits of the phrase "family values," there we can share a good laugh. Since the FV crowd seem to consider families and issues of sexuality incompatable, one wonders where they think babies come from.
Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?
Because choosing to carry Hustler would take a positive decision and an expenditure of funds. Buying Hustler would be less shelf space for other magazines, and less money to subscribe to them. Censoring your internet feed, however, would also take a postive decision and an expenditure.
In other words, purchasing a print work is never the default decision (unless you're in book-of-the-month club), and no library can carry everything. Web access is just the opposite. The default is full access--restricting access takes effort and cash.
It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.
I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda
The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.
I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda
The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings." The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.
If successful, this will be a wonderful labor-saving device. All the unfortunate people who currently spend all their time chatting on IRC will be able to have their bots do it for them, and finally lead full productive lives.
We sell systems based on Open Source software and provide significant amounts of consulting services to companies building major sites on the Internet like eToys, Akamai, DoubleClick, and Starmedia.
If you're trying to endear yourself to Slashdot readers, perhaps you shouldn't emphasize your ties to eToys and DoubleClick this month. Eh, Larry?
Page 4, lines 19-21 read, "Defendants have not provided evidence of any economic harm which an injunction could currently cause, although if such an injunction were not granted it is quite possible that this could change which could possibly shift the burden of harm in Defendants' favor"
Is it my imagination, or is the judge saying that if the mirrors would just all charge for the software, it would be much harder to get an injunction, since they would have an economic interest in its being available?
Note that the Libby Dole quote refers to the right of communities to install censorware, whereas McCail's bill and press statements advocate the federal gov't forcing public libraries to install the software.
In the past, it made sense that Slashdot content was all volunteer and unedited--the whole site was a shoestring operation. Now that you're on a more professional footing, these matters become choices, and not necessarily easy ones.
As grateful as I am for my/.AC tee that I got yesterday (thanks, Hemos), I'm curious whether y'all have given consideration to more substantial compensation for contributors, and whether (financial concerns aside) you think it would help or hinder the quality of the submissions?
One notable diference between Slashdot and most of the comparable 'community news' sites out there is the absence of any 'standing forums'--ongoing discussions not pegged to any specific news story. Is this something y'all decided against having, or just haven't gotten around to implementing yet?
The recent addition of the special 'sections'(YRO, Ask Slashdot, Apache, etc.), combined with the increasingly custimizable moderation system, raises an interesting question: how diverse can Slashdot become? Rather than just a forum for the Linux/Open Source community,/. seems to be becoming more and more a general geek portal. Is this desirable? Is it something you're deliberately working towards? How far would you want the shift to go?
I'm afraid ol' Be, Incorporated is kinda in the habit of unfortunate alliances. Their first shot at the Internet Appliances brass ring was with the sleazy, unproductive, and eventually bankrupt Microworkz. Their deal with Real Networks was announced only weeks before the RealJukebox debacle. They manage to make Intel a major investor, and AMD snags the high-performance crown.
Watch for news that Opera has been involved in ritual cannibalism or something any day.
The article contains a bunch of funky character entities like #8212, #8220, #8221, and #8217, which fail to render in NetPositive, BeOpera, and BeLynx (a rather eccentric collection of browsers, I admit). As I was preparing to flame him, I violated my principles, and did a little research first, and found this at w3c.org, which appears to list them as valid HTML. What gives?
Slashdot Mirror
Those wily Slashdot puppetmasters have slyly undermined the resistance to their corruption by showcasing to such breathtakingly lame attacks.
What else can explain linking to an article that calls VA a "software company" in "direct competition" with Red Hat, and which implies that VA didn't have a community stock offering like Red Hat's. Why else would they select an article that renders itself easily dismissable by blithely asserting that there is no potential conflict of intrest between Lycos and Hotwired?
Only to discredit their attackers! But their sinister scheme must not succeed--onward, freedom fighters!
To claim Webmonkey (or Hotwired) have been unaffected by their own ownership dramas is outrageous
I disagree. I think Wired has always been a bunch of corporate goons. No selling out involved.
I read another interview (I'm afraid I don't remember where) where he talked about how good stories are worthwhile and satisfying, they're just not what Id does well; he held up (any guesses?) Half-Life as an example of Id makes the engine, someone else produces the compelling plot, everyone's happy. Struck me as a very reasonable position.
I view it sort of like operating systems (yeah, I know--talking about computers on Slashdot--unheard of!). You need a kernel and basic device drivers to make the thing usable (you need to punish theft, cheating, violence, and exessively disruptive behavior), but the rest of the system should be as modular and user-configurable as possible (the rest can be left to parents).
Now, it's true that most schools do go further and try to teach the value of tolerance of difference, which a great many people disapprove of (though they'll usually phrase their disapproval in more palatable ways). I think it's at least arguable that this is a part of discouraging disruption of the learning process. So long as public schools accept students regardless of orientation, ethnicity, etc., a certain minimal level of tolerance is necessary to allow the school's primary business of classroom education to take place.
Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?
Because choosing to carry Hustler would take a positive decision and an expenditure of funds. Buying Hustler would be less shelf space for other magazines, and less money to subscribe to them. Censoring your internet feed, however, would also take a postive decision and an expenditure.
In other words, purchasing a print work is never the default decision (unless you're in book-of-the-month club), and no library can carry everything. Web access is just the opposite. The default is full access--restricting access takes effort and cash.
It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.
I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda
The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.
In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.
It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.
I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda
The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.
I kept thinking Rob's Debian tee-shirt was a Transmeta shirt. Oops.
Amazing! Y'all were more rambling & incoherent than on Geeks In Space--it's very exciting.
Yet another glorious demonstration of the miraculous power of Beer. Beer--it's what's for dinner! Beer--it's not just for breakfast anymore.
It's like Henry Ford's famous remark that the consumer can get the Model T in any color, so long as it's black.
Crusoe will emulate any chip, so long as it's an x86.
Equal equity is important to give a sense of fairness to all the founders.
Oh, go ahead and call it "equity equity." It's cooler.
If successful, this will be a wonderful labor-saving device. All the unfortunate people who currently spend all their time chatting on IRC will be able to have their bots do it for them, and finally lead full productive lives.
Ain't technology grand?
'Cause he's the only one with a deep voice--sorta the James Earl Jones of Geeks In Space.
We sell systems based on Open Source software and provide significant amounts of consulting services to companies building major sites on the Internet like eToys, Akamai, DoubleClick, and Starmedia.
If you're trying to endear yourself to Slashdot readers, perhaps you shouldn't emphasize your ties to eToys and DoubleClick this month. Eh, Larry?
There's a saying about barn doors that seems appropriate here. Dang...it's right on the tip of my tongue!
Oh, well.
Page 4, lines 19-21 read, "Defendants have not provided evidence of any economic harm which an injunction could currently cause, although if such an injunction were not granted it is quite possible that this could change which could possibly shift the burden of harm in Defendants' favor"
Is it my imagination, or is the judge saying that if the mirrors would just all charge for the software, it would be much harder to get an injunction, since they would have an economic interest in its being available?
Note that the Libby Dole quote refers to the right of communities to install censorware, whereas McCail's bill and press statements advocate the federal gov't forcing public libraries to install the software.
Anyone know where we can see captures of the CBS broadcast in question? Neither article seems to have them, weirdly enough.
I'm not sure if that was stupid or magnificent. A little of both, I think. Paragraph breaks could only improve it, though.
As it happens, I have moderator access right now, but until they have a +i for Meshugga, I don't think I'd presume to moderate that post.
In the past, it made sense that Slashdot content was all volunteer and unedited--the whole site was a shoestring operation. Now that you're on a more professional footing, these matters become choices, and not necessarily easy ones.
/.AC tee that I got yesterday (thanks, Hemos), I'm curious whether y'all have given consideration to more substantial compensation for contributors, and whether (financial concerns aside) you think it would help or hinder the quality of the submissions?
As grateful as I am for my
One notable diference between Slashdot and most of the comparable 'community news' sites out there is the absence of any 'standing forums'--ongoing discussions not pegged to any specific news story. Is this something y'all decided against having, or just haven't gotten around to implementing yet?
The recent addition of the special 'sections'(YRO, Ask Slashdot, Apache, etc.), combined with the increasingly custimizable moderation system, raises an interesting question: how diverse can Slashdot become? Rather than just a forum for the Linux/Open Source community, /. seems to be becoming more and more a general geek portal. Is this desirable? Is it something you're deliberately working towards? How far would you want the shift to go?
I'm afraid ol' Be, Incorporated is kinda in the habit of unfortunate alliances. Their first shot at the Internet Appliances brass ring was with the sleazy, unproductive, and eventually bankrupt Microworkz. Their deal with Real Networks was announced only weeks before the RealJukebox debacle. They manage to make Intel a major investor, and AMD snags the high-performance crown.
Watch for news that Opera has been involved in ritual cannibalism or something any day.
The article contains a bunch of funky character entities like
#8212, #8220, #8221, and #8217, which fail to render in NetPositive, BeOpera, and BeLynx (a rather eccentric collection of browsers, I admit). As I was preparing to flame him, I violated my principles, and did a little research first, and found this at w3c.org, which appears to list them as valid HTML. What gives?