That link shows, a mechanism. Not that spooks were behind it.
In that article, the key is "semi-permanently." If someone was acting unilatterally, then there'd be a log of it, and their oversight permission would be revoked, the edit restored, the offending user probably banned.
I brought this up at the time, but everyone I brought it up to dismissed it. This is CENTCOM's job - US taxpayer's dollars to rewrite history, so that the US can keep going overseas militarily. It particularly annoyed me that I was paying the salary of the person trying to rewrite history. I kind of felt like I was battling someone in the bowels of the US's Orwellian version of "Minitru". Get your facts straight troll. CENTCOM is US Central Command. It is the US military's unified (i.e. interbranch) command for the middle east and central asia, excluding Israel. (Israel for some reason is under EUCOM.) It is not a propaganda arm of the US Military. CENTCOM's job is wage war. That's it. Do that have a PR arm? Of course! All large organizations do.
Does that mean that someone with a centcom.mil address didn't edited wikipedia? No of course not. But then again, why shouldn't some soldier edit wikipedia? It's open to everyone.
Now reading your edits, it makes me wonder why you have a bug up your ass about this, because the sections removed had to do with unverifyable assertions, namely that 300-400 people were killed even though bodies weren't found where they were reportedly buried. Since this unverifyable, it should not appear in wikipedia, as per wikipedia standards. If you want it there, verify it. Find those bodies. But just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it so, and doesn't entitle it to be there.
It is interesting thing note that, Josh Rushing, the Marine public relations officer, now works for Al Jazeera English.
In the mid-1990s, I got a strange SNMP request from an army intelligence outfit in Quantico, Virginia after reading Australian web sites which discussed possible CIA involvement in overthrowing Australia's government in the 1970's (the Whitlam/Kerr thing).
Yeah yeah. The Man thinks you're a grave threat.
Hate to bust bubble, but contrary to what you mom told you, no one gives a shit about you because you're just not special.
From the blurb:
Shortly after her Wikipedia identity was uncovered, many of her edits to articles related to the bombing were permanently removed from the database in an attempt to conceal her identity. Huh? That would imply that spooks not only have root access, but also the power to destroy all the backups from everyone else with root access.
Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent? Perhaps not, but is that really the kind of people RMS and the Community(tm) wants to be associated with?
RMS's zealotry crystalized in my mind when back in 2000 or something, he was to give a speech at a college, and he threw a tantrum and pouted until the system used to record and stream the speech to other locations was either switched to use "Free Software" or were turned off, because they used Quicktime. The IT guy replied, "We looked at 'Free Software' alternatives, but nothing currently available can stream both the video and the audio. The audio is not streamed properly." Stallman's response, "Well that will encourage people to fix it!"
Whatever dude. Stallman confirmed his irrelevancy in that moment.
Who cares what Linus has to say? It's readily apparent that the inevitable consequence will be a shift away from Linux kernel under GPL2 towards Solaris under GPL3. Only by the people that use HURD will switch. No one else gives a damn.
No one is switching to Solaris, because Solaris is dying, if not dead already. The only reason why Sun has opened it up is because they're desperate. Their expensive hardware has been replaced with commodity components, and their expensive OS has been replaced with one that costs nothing to aquire, Linux. Opening Solaris is desperation move, just like Netscape opening Navigator, only OpenSolaris won't get any traction in the Community, because the open source unix kernel niche is already occupied -- by Linux.
Oh, and you forgot to call it GNU/Solaris.
Linus is a tool. He goes on about how he picked his methodology because of efficiencies, not morality. But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license. If they just wanted open-code efficiency, they would have went with the tried and true BSD license. You conclusion doesn't follow, since both BSD and GPL provide efficiency by leveraging the Bazaar as ESR called it. Linus decided for whatever reason, that GPL was more efficient. People assisted not because of the "morality" of the license, but because they got something out of it. An improved Unix kernel that ran ubiquitious 386 hardware. They could contribute, so they did. The same would have happned if he chose the BSD license. The GPL Is The One True License(tm) crowd is not, and never has been, the majority of the contributors, nor a majority of the key contributors, to the Linux kernel.
If you want to look for a project that appeals to people that care more about political wankfests than getting real work done, look at HURD, or even FreeBSD, and look where those projects are. What's the install base of HURD? Twelve?
Linus doesn't even write code anymore. If not for the perceived morality of having a kernel under the GPL, and the droves of developers who participated for that very reason, he would be a complete non-entity. Yeah, and RMS writes 1500 LOCs a day.
Since when does someones ability to critique a political and legal document hinge on whether some one is actively writing code? It's not like Linus is sitting back and resting on his piles of money. (Like he has any.)
You want to believe that people flocked to Linux because the GPL made it more "moral." Bullshit. People jumped on the Linux bandwaggon, because it was unix that ran on the 386. FreeBSD didn't even exist until 1993, and prior to that 386BSD wasn't even released until 1992. By comparison, Linux was initially released in 1991. It had first mover advantage and an open source license. That's it. So go and spout your historical revision somewhere else, because contrary to what RMS and the FSF mailing lists say, most people don't care about political statements. They just want their code to work.
Easy enough to mouth off at this point. Isn't that all RMS does? And even more to the point, what you're doing?
Now run along and file your bug report against the Linux kernel for using bitkeeper, or not calling itself GNU/Linux. The grown-ups have work to do.
There was a man tried and convicted due to recorded confessions he made AFTER the statute of limitations had run out. Because of his confessions, the legislator moved to increase the statute of limitations RETROACTIVELY, and therefore, he was arrested, and convicted of the crime he admitted to having committed. So your argument is, "No fair! He got away with committing a crime?" I never understood the argument for a the statue of limitations. What? It's only a crime if you can't avoid indictment for x years?
There's no ex post facto here! He violated the law at the time he committed the crime. Case closed.
Then again, news = current events and current events are not copyrightable. Perhaps not, but reports about the current event are, and always have been.
No such hurdle exists. The government makes ex post facto laws, and the supreme court approves them when it gets to see them, regardless of the prohibitions of the constitution. Two examples come readily to mind. One is the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, though the law did not exist at the time of the felon's sentencing and the judge did not declare that a prohibition of owning firearms was a specific part of the punishment to be meted out. Your example shows that you not only have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an ex post facto law is, but also how an ex post facto law would be enforced, and what criminal punishments are.
You're example is not an ex post facto law, because it is not a criminal punishment. It is a licensing requirement. The only possible ex post facto situation would be if you already were a felon and a legal gun owner, and then they passed the law saying "no felons can own guns." Even then, that still wouldn't be ex post facto situation because after the date the law went into effect you couldn't own a gun, and if you transfered ownership of them prior to the law's enaction then you wouldn't be involation of the law. (Laws rarely go into effect the moment they are signed. Especially laws that require time to become into complience with them.) The only ex post facto part would be if the government cross checked the felon records with the gun ownership records, and then arrested you for posessing a gun that you no longer owned because you sold it three years prior to the law coming into effect. But that's not what's going on in your example, because that's not what goes on in real life, and you're intent on indicting the real life situation.
You want to cloud the issue by using the term "punishment," and say that that since the effect is arguably the same as changing the criminal sentencing guidelines after the fact, that they these laws are unconstitutional because the constitution forbids a specific legal mechanism. Of course, it's an inconvient truth, that the forbidden legal mechanism isn't being employed in these case, and so shame be upon anyone driving a truck through this hole in your cleverly crafted arguement.
Your argument makes just as much sense as: "Your newly passed a law saying I have to be licensed to practice medicine is infringing on my right to free expression, and I used to do that, so this is ex post facto!" The only reason your post has been pushed up to +5 is because no one has called you on the fact that convicted felons are subject to regulatory laws just like everyone else.
Furthermore, you're trying to argue that the employed legal mechanism that is moot, but it should be declared unconsitutional on mechanicistic grounds. I wish you would make up your mind if the legal mechanism is moot or not. I understand your delima. I really do. If it's moot, then you can claim the moral high ground by trying use mechanistic argument against it because mechanisms are irrelevant, but if isn't moot, then you have to yield that it isn't an ex post facto criminal law. Oh fuck! You're screwed either way! Do you know what that means?
Your argument has catastrophically collapsed due to being based on a logical fallacy.
I know of no government excuse for this. Bullshit. You provided the "excuse" in your post, promptly calling it "specious" because it has the unfortunate characteristic of actually having the facts on it's side.
Your argument is crap. You have no understanding of the legal issues involved. Well that's not entirely true. You know what they are, but you don't want them to be true, so you'll just declare it as being prima facie bankrupt, and hope that no one will call your bluff.
NEWSFLASH! Most blogs are crap. I'm not just talking about crap posted to livejournal, or myspace, or heaven forbid twitter. I'm talking about prominent blogs. Most posts are just a few lines. Sure, aggrigation blogs like slashdot have their place. They're a filter, but they don't generate content. At their best, they drive traffic to sites with higher quality content, thus ensuring their own place as a popular filter. At their worst, they think they actually contribute something on their own and drive the discussion in a very self-absorbed manner (*cough* DailyKos *cough*).
The thing I've found about my favorite sites are the fact that they don't have a user comment section. Heresy! Perhaps, but less face it. Most people, myself included, don't have anything interesting to say. Look at any popular blog and you'll see the discussion dominated by one sentence posts, and depending on the the community, barely coherent rants moderated up because they reinforce the group's biases rather than actually providing anything useful. That doesn't mean that comments are welcome, but they have to be pretty damn good to get posted. See BoingBoing for an example.
The best blogs not only build on other sites, but also generate their own content. One of the strongest sites in this regard is talkingpointsmemo. Josh Marhsal, not only links to other stories, but actually does his own reporting on certain issues. Most notably The Abramoff corruption scandal, especially with resepect to Duke Cunningham's bribe taking, and the Valerie Plame Affair. Other sites meanwhile tended to just say, "Those fucking bastards", and that's pretty much it.
The thing that many in the blogosphere don't like is that the newspapers are right when they say that thhe blogs aren't generating content, but rather just reposting content from others. Dan Gilmore had his dream of "citizen journalism," but most people don't want to take the time to do that. They just want to sit in the peanut gallery and comment.
Nah. It's life insurance. Afterall, MetLife has been using Snoopy to market to kids for generations. Afterall, RJ Reynolds was doing the same thing with Joe Camel, and look at their success.
WRT to "true AI," we can't even define intelligence, let alone proving another person is actually sentient as opposed to being an elaborate stimulus response.
Quicksort, which is O(n^2), generally outperforms the O(nLog(n)) algorithms. Yeah so? Perhaps you didn't get this when you took basic asymptotic analysis, but O() is the worst case. THETA() is average case. Quicksort is THETA(n lg n), just like many O(n lg n) algorithms. Even here, quicksort has a lower coefficient than other THETA(n lg n) algorithms. You seem to be implying that no one knows what's going on here, but that's not the case. It's a well understood phenomenon. Perhaps you didn't know that, because undergraduate analysis courses rarely go beyond worst case analysis, becasue usually that's all you need. It's just that quicksort is the exception that proves the rule.
So now theory is concerned with deriving probabilistic bounds on accuracy and runtime for heuristic methods This is simply not true. There's plenty of provably optimal solutions being developed. Heuristics are nice, but researchers always feel a bit dirty using them.
Doesn't work dude. Sure it make sense, but it doesn't work in practice. People don't know how set their tab stops, and thus start using spaces. Soon you have a mess where nothing is aligned on anyone's computer. Just use spaces. It's the only thing that works. But of course, then you have someone using tabs because because they're not going to bother hitting 8 spaces, and anyway Joe over there hits tab all the time, and it none cares. (Little does he know that Joe's editor is actually inserting spaces into file.)
Just resign yourself to the fact that nothing works, because people are lazy and dumb. Trying to outsmart the problem is never works, because people are lazy and dumb.
We've been hearing Linux was "almost ready" for almost 10 years now. Who's got the earliest link to this old saw? I've got Linus in 1999. There's got to be something earlier?
Oh! Stupid me! It was 1999! Yeah. definately1999. I mean. It's not like Linus would the exact same thing five years later. It had to be 1999, because it was Almost Ready(tm) for the desktop back in 1994 when I first used it!
Now, tell me again. Why do I have a mac? Oh that's right. It's Unix, but I don't have to sysadmin it like Linux.
Yes yes. "Some people like to learn about their machine." [emphasis original] Ahh yes. I was once like you, some 13 years ago this fall. Then I got a bit older, and perhaps a bit wiser, and learned that there was much more important things than screwing around with sendmail, or 3d acceleration, or hotplug vs devfs, or ipchains vs ipfwadm, or oss vs alsa, or cups vs lpr, or... It's a tool. Nothing more. If the tool is working you, instead of you working the tool, it's time to get a new tool.
If this was any of you guys downloading stuff off Bittorrent all we'd here is "It's NOT STEALING WAAHH!!!" However, now if the guys at GeekSquad do the exact same thing it's now 'stealing'.... No. It's not the "exact same thing," nor is it "stealing." It's a violation of privacy. It's not stealing because there's no loss of material. It's a loss of privacy. That's it. Theft is dependent on scarcity, and this is isn't an issue because an exact copy is made. Material was in fact created, not misappropriated. Give up on trying troll on the idea that somehow the standards that apply to a scarcity based world exist in a post-scacity environment. They don't, and they never did, because it's impossible to lose anything.
Oh and not to put too fine a point on the whole central problem the main premise of your post, but no one called this "stealing" jackass!
Oh, and don't even try that: 'But on Bittorrent it's OK since I have permission' bit with me, unless you yourself made the content (and for the love of God I hope it ain't Porn), your 'permission' is about as relevant as me giving you 'permission' to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. No. It's every bit as relevant here, because it's not theft, and it never was. This is all about an expectation of privacy. In P2P I decide whether and what I want to share off my drive. This is them rumaging through my stuff and taking whatever I want. In the real world this would be putting a stack of stuff on the the curb with a sign that reads "free or best offer" and people coming up and rumaging through that, versus coming home and finding some guy digging through your bedroom closet.
No one gives a shit if someone makes a copy of your porn collection (unless perhaps it's your private homemade porn) or your mp3 collection. What's really the problem is if it was something of more value, like your bank account information, or your passwords or something like that. Porn and mp3s are publically available, my personal information isn't.
Again, your Brooklyn Bridge argument is of no consequence, because you're trying to apply the rules of scarcity economy to a post-scarcity one. They don't apply. There's only one Brooklyn Bridge. If you wanted to make your analogy appropriate, and you didn't, it would have been "[You] giving [me] permission to copy the Brooklyn Bridge." Oh snap! That completly changes everything, because now there's two Brooklyn Bridges! Well that's inconvient, so let's just ignore that shall we?
It's not a genre of music. It's a genre of album if anything.
Johny Cash is an icon and one of my favorite performers of all time, but America sucks. It beats you over the head. Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral is a great album, and it has been called a "concept album," but it doesn't beat you over the head and so it works. As I said, if you're beating people over the head with your "message," you suck as a writer.
The stereotypical concept album was an artifact of 1970s hallucinogens and progressive rock. 20 minute songs deserved to die.
I think Jon Stewart had it right when he said, "You want to get people motivated? Protesting in the street? Have a draft."
It's all "politics as usual" and "boring" until it's your life in danger. Most people don't have any connection to Iraq besides their $3 "I Support The Troops More Than You" magnetic ribbon. (Okay, that link is sarcastic, but it's a good link!:D )
I'm sorry, but the concept album was always horrible self-absorbed exercise from the 70s. Yes, they still exist, but they're rarely any good. The good concepts albums are simply nominal concept albums. If you bash your audience over the head, you suck as a writer. Albums are portfolios. They represent a body of work at a period of time. Even on the fabled concept album, there's rarely any more than three stand out songs.
Good writers make good songs. The idea that they should sit on them until they get 12 others that might kinda sort of have a almost convincing story connecting them is dumb.
The problem isn't that the albums aren't concept albums, it's that most writers can't write lyrics. There's a lot of bands that I like. I like the music. The songs are cool, but I found it often helps not to actively listen to the lyrics. There's almost always a bit sophmoric. In the worst case, the lyrics reek of "moving units in the 13-20 year old demographic."
AC/DC, Bob Seger, etc, will always put albums worth buying but now you'll be saved from whole albums of Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson. AC/DC? Bob Seger?
There was no way he was going to get 8 phones. Sales were limited to one per customer, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have said that as a joke. I would be kind of surprised if someone who recognized Woz wouldn't let him cut in front of them. "Hey! It's Woz! Come stand by me so I can chat with you for 8 hours!" Repeat until you're a the front of the line, and everyone is is compensated with a private audience.;)
The most recent vast government conspiracy is of course that GWB et. al. Either orchastrated, or allowed to happen and then embellished, 9/11. Of course, all of this hinges on a grand conspiracy being meticulously carried out by Bush Administration. I'm sorry. But THIS adminstration? The adminstration that brought you Iraq and Katrina? I'm sorry, but we've seen the MO for this adminstration and competence, just isn't it.
Federal officers can seek FISA warrants Actually, it's the "liberals" (i.e. those who believe in the rule of law) who point that out. "Conservatives" (i.e. authoritarians) are the ones saying that the FISA court is "quaint" and unneeded.
Perhaps you should get your facts straight and then reexamine your political identification.
Slashdot Mirror
Family Guy did that.
That link shows, a mechanism. Not that spooks were behind it.
In that article, the key is "semi-permanently." If someone was acting unilatterally, then there'd be a log of it, and their oversight permission would be revoked, the edit restored, the offending user probably banned.
Does that mean that someone with a centcom.mil address didn't edited wikipedia? No of course not. But then again, why shouldn't some soldier edit wikipedia? It's open to everyone.
Now reading your edits, it makes me wonder why you have a bug up your ass about this, because the sections removed had to do with unverifyable assertions, namely that 300-400 people were killed even though bodies weren't found where they were reportedly buried. Since this unverifyable, it should not appear in wikipedia, as per wikipedia standards. If you want it there, verify it. Find those bodies. But just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it so, and doesn't entitle it to be there.
It is interesting thing note that, Josh Rushing, the Marine public relations officer, now works for Al Jazeera English. In the mid-1990s, I got a strange SNMP request from an army intelligence outfit in Quantico, Virginia after reading Australian web sites which discussed possible CIA involvement in overthrowing Australia's government in the 1970's (the Whitlam/Kerr thing). Yeah yeah. The Man thinks you're a grave threat.
Hate to bust bubble, but contrary to what you mom told you, no one gives a shit about you because you're just not special.
Prove it.
RMS's zealotry crystalized in my mind when back in 2000 or something, he was to give a speech at a college, and he threw a tantrum and pouted until the system used to record and stream the speech to other locations was either switched to use "Free Software" or were turned off, because they used Quicktime. The IT guy replied, "We looked at 'Free Software' alternatives, but nothing currently available can stream both the video and the audio. The audio is not streamed properly." Stallman's response, "Well that will encourage people to fix it!"
Whatever dude. Stallman confirmed his irrelevancy in that moment.
No one is switching to Solaris, because Solaris is dying, if not dead already. The only reason why Sun has opened it up is because they're desperate. Their expensive hardware has been replaced with commodity components, and their expensive OS has been replaced with one that costs nothing to aquire, Linux. Opening Solaris is desperation move, just like Netscape opening Navigator, only OpenSolaris won't get any traction in the Community, because the open source unix kernel niche is already occupied -- by Linux.
Oh, and you forgot to call it GNU/Solaris. Linus is a tool. He goes on about how he picked his methodology because of efficiencies, not morality. But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license. If they just wanted open-code efficiency, they would have went with the tried and true BSD license. You conclusion doesn't follow, since both BSD and GPL provide efficiency by leveraging the Bazaar as ESR called it. Linus decided for whatever reason, that GPL was more efficient. People assisted not because of the "morality" of the license, but because they got something out of it. An improved Unix kernel that ran ubiquitious 386 hardware. They could contribute, so they did. The same would have happned if he chose the BSD license. The GPL Is The One True License(tm) crowd is not, and never has been, the majority of the contributors, nor a majority of the key contributors, to the Linux kernel.
If you want to look for a project that appeals to people that care more about political wankfests than getting real work done, look at HURD, or even FreeBSD, and look where those projects are. What's the install base of HURD? Twelve? Linus doesn't even write code anymore. If not for the perceived morality of having a kernel under the GPL, and the droves of developers who participated for that very reason, he would be a complete non-entity. Yeah, and RMS writes 1500 LOCs a day.
Since when does someones ability to critique a political and legal document hinge on whether some one is actively writing code? It's not like Linus is sitting back and resting on his piles of money. (Like he has any.)
You want to believe that people flocked to Linux because the GPL made it more "moral." Bullshit. People jumped on the Linux bandwaggon, because it was unix that ran on the 386. FreeBSD didn't even exist until 1993, and prior to that 386BSD wasn't even released until 1992. By comparison, Linux was initially released in 1991. It had first mover advantage and an open source license. That's it. So go and spout your historical revision somewhere else, because contrary to what RMS and the FSF mailing lists say, most people don't care about political statements. They just want their code to work. Easy enough to mouth off at this point. Isn't that all RMS does? And even more to the point, what you're doing?
Now run along and file your bug report against the Linux kernel for using bitkeeper, or not calling itself GNU/Linux. The grown-ups have work to do.
There's no ex post facto here! He violated the law at the time he committed the crime. Case closed.
You're example is not an ex post facto law, because it is not a criminal punishment. It is a licensing requirement. The only possible ex post facto situation would be if you already were a felon and a legal gun owner, and then they passed the law saying "no felons can own guns." Even then, that still wouldn't be ex post facto situation because after the date the law went into effect you couldn't own a gun, and if you transfered ownership of them prior to the law's enaction then you wouldn't be involation of the law. (Laws rarely go into effect the moment they are signed. Especially laws that require time to become into complience with them.) The only ex post facto part would be if the government cross checked the felon records with the gun ownership records, and then arrested you for posessing a gun that you no longer owned because you sold it three years prior to the law coming into effect. But that's not what's going on in your example, because that's not what goes on in real life, and you're intent on indicting the real life situation.
You want to cloud the issue by using the term "punishment," and say that that since the effect is arguably the same as changing the criminal sentencing guidelines after the fact, that they these laws are unconstitutional because the constitution forbids a specific legal mechanism. Of course, it's an inconvient truth, that the forbidden legal mechanism isn't being employed in these case, and so shame be upon anyone driving a truck through this hole in your cleverly crafted arguement.
Your argument makes just as much sense as: "Your newly passed a law saying I have to be licensed to practice medicine is infringing on my right to free expression, and I used to do that, so this is ex post facto!" The only reason your post has been pushed up to +5 is because no one has called you on the fact that convicted felons are subject to regulatory laws just like everyone else.
Furthermore, you're trying to argue that the employed legal mechanism that is moot, but it should be declared unconsitutional on mechanicistic grounds. I wish you would make up your mind if the legal mechanism is moot or not. I understand your delima. I really do. If it's moot, then you can claim the moral high ground by trying use mechanistic argument against it because mechanisms are irrelevant, but if isn't moot, then you have to yield that it isn't an ex post facto criminal law. Oh fuck! You're screwed either way! Do you know what that means?
Your argument has catastrophically collapsed due to being based on a logical fallacy. I know of no government excuse for this. Bullshit. You provided the "excuse" in your post, promptly calling it "specious" because it has the unfortunate characteristic of actually having the facts on it's side.
Your argument is crap. You have no understanding of the legal issues involved. Well that's not entirely true. You know what they are, but you don't want them to be true, so you'll just declare it as being prima facie bankrupt, and hope that no one will call your bluff.
Too bad. I call.
NEWSFLASH! Most blogs are crap. I'm not just talking about crap posted to livejournal, or myspace, or heaven forbid twitter. I'm talking about prominent blogs. Most posts are just a few lines. Sure, aggrigation blogs like slashdot have their place. They're a filter, but they don't generate content. At their best, they drive traffic to sites with higher quality content, thus ensuring their own place as a popular filter. At their worst, they think they actually contribute something on their own and drive the discussion in a very self-absorbed manner (*cough* DailyKos *cough*).
;)
The thing I've found about my favorite sites are the fact that they don't have a user comment section. Heresy! Perhaps, but less face it. Most people, myself included, don't have anything interesting to say. Look at any popular blog and you'll see the discussion dominated by one sentence posts, and depending on the the community, barely coherent rants moderated up because they reinforce the group's biases rather than actually providing anything useful. That doesn't mean that comments are welcome, but they have to be pretty damn good to get posted. See BoingBoing for an example.
The best blogs not only build on other sites, but also generate their own content. One of the strongest sites in this regard is talkingpointsmemo. Josh Marhsal, not only links to other stories, but actually does his own reporting on certain issues. Most notably The Abramoff corruption scandal, especially with resepect to Duke Cunningham's bribe taking, and the Valerie Plame Affair. Other sites meanwhile tended to just say, "Those fucking bastards", and that's pretty much it.
The thing that many in the blogosphere don't like is that the newspapers are right when they say that thhe blogs aren't generating content, but rather just reposting content from others. Dan Gilmore had his dream of "citizen journalism," but most people don't want to take the time to do that. They just want to sit in the peanut gallery and comment.
Thus ends my hypocritical post.
Nah. It's life insurance. Afterall, MetLife has been using Snoopy to market to kids for generations. Afterall, RJ Reynolds was doing the same thing with Joe Camel, and look at their success.
Doesn't work dude. Sure it make sense, but it doesn't work in practice. People don't know how set their tab stops, and thus start using spaces. Soon you have a mess where nothing is aligned on anyone's computer. Just use spaces. It's the only thing that works. But of course, then you have someone using tabs because because they're not going to bother hitting 8 spaces, and anyway Joe over there hits tab all the time, and it none cares. (Little does he know that Joe's editor is actually inserting spaces into file.)
Just resign yourself to the fact that nothing works, because people are lazy and dumb. Trying to outsmart the problem is never works, because people are lazy and dumb.
That explains it. "Linux Desktop" is part of the Chinese Zodiac, just like pig, dog, or horse.
:D
Ooo! Or perhaps the Geek Zodiac.
We've been hearing Linux was "almost ready" for almost 10 years now. Who's got the earliest link to this old saw? I've got Linus in 1999. There's got to be something earlier?
Funny. I thought that was 2004.
... It's a tool. Nothing more. If the tool is working you, instead of you working the tool, it's time to get a new tool.
Or was it 2006?
Or was it actually 2002 and then it burst in 2006?
Umm... 2003?
Oh! Stupid me! It was 1999! Yeah. definately 1999. I mean. It's not like Linus would the exact same thing five years later.
It had to be 1999, because it was Almost Ready(tm) for the desktop back in 1994 when I first used it!
Now, tell me again. Why do I have a mac? Oh that's right. It's Unix, but I don't have to sysadmin it like Linux.
Yes yes. "Some people like to learn about their machine." [emphasis original] Ahh yes. I was once like you, some 13 years ago this fall. Then I got a bit older, and perhaps a bit wiser, and learned that there was much more important things than screwing around with sendmail, or 3d acceleration, or hotplug vs devfs, or ipchains vs ipfwadm, or oss vs alsa, or cups vs lpr, or
However, now if the guys at GeekSquad do the exact same thing it's now 'stealing'.... No. It's not the "exact same thing," nor is it "stealing." It's a violation of privacy. It's not stealing because there's no loss of material. It's a loss of privacy. That's it. Theft is dependent on scarcity, and this is isn't an issue because an exact copy is made. Material was in fact created, not misappropriated. Give up on trying troll on the idea that somehow the standards that apply to a scarcity based world exist in a post-scacity environment. They don't, and they never did, because it's impossible to lose anything.
Oh and not to put too fine a point on the whole central problem the main premise of your post, but no one called this "stealing" jackass! Oh, and don't even try that: 'But on Bittorrent it's OK since I have permission' bit with me, unless you yourself made the content (and for the love of God I hope it ain't Porn), your 'permission' is about as relevant as me giving you 'permission' to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. No. It's every bit as relevant here, because it's not theft, and it never was. This is all about an expectation of privacy. In P2P I decide whether and what I want to share off my drive. This is them rumaging through my stuff and taking whatever I want. In the real world this would be putting a stack of stuff on the the curb with a sign that reads "free or best offer" and people coming up and rumaging through that, versus coming home and finding some guy digging through your bedroom closet.
No one gives a shit if someone makes a copy of your porn collection (unless perhaps it's your private homemade porn) or your mp3 collection. What's really the problem is if it was something of more value, like your bank account information, or your passwords or something like that. Porn and mp3s are publically available, my personal information isn't.
Again, your Brooklyn Bridge argument is of no consequence, because you're trying to apply the rules of scarcity economy to a post-scarcity one. They don't apply. There's only one Brooklyn Bridge. If you wanted to make your analogy appropriate, and you didn't, it would have been "[You] giving [me] permission to copy the Brooklyn Bridge." Oh snap! That completly changes everything, because now there's two Brooklyn Bridges! Well that's inconvient, so let's just ignore that shall we?
It's not a genre of music. It's a genre of album if anything.
Johny Cash is an icon and one of my favorite performers of all time, but America sucks. It beats you over the head. Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral is a great album, and it has been called a "concept album," but it doesn't beat you over the head and so it works. As I said, if you're beating people over the head with your "message," you suck as a writer.
The stereotypical concept album was an artifact of 1970s hallucinogens and progressive rock. 20 minute songs deserved to die.
I think Jon Stewart had it right when he said, "You want to get people motivated? Protesting in the street? Have a draft."
:D )
It's all "politics as usual" and "boring" until it's your life in danger. Most people don't have any connection to Iraq besides their $3 "I Support The Troops More Than You" magnetic ribbon. (Okay, that link is sarcastic, but it's a good link!
I'm sorry, but the concept album was always horrible self-absorbed exercise from the 70s. Yes, they still exist, but they're rarely any good. The good concepts albums are simply nominal concept albums. If you bash your audience over the head, you suck as a writer. Albums are portfolios. They represent a body of work at a period of time. Even on the fabled concept album, there's rarely any more than three stand out songs.
Good writers make good songs. The idea that they should sit on them until they get 12 others that might kinda sort of have a almost convincing story connecting them is dumb.
The problem isn't that the albums aren't concept albums, it's that most writers can't write lyrics. There's a lot of bands that I like. I like the music. The songs are cool, but I found it often helps not to actively listen to the lyrics. There's almost always a bit sophmoric. In the worst case, the lyrics reek of "moving units in the 13-20 year old demographic."
Oh! You were being sarcastic!
There was no way he was going to get 8 phones. Sales were limited to one per customer, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have said that as a joke. I would be kind of surprised if someone who recognized Woz wouldn't let him cut in front of them. "Hey! It's Woz! Come stand by me so I can chat with you for 8 hours!" Repeat until you're a the front of the line, and everyone is is compensated with a private audience. ;)
Hear! Hear!
You can't keep anything secret for 60 years.
The most recent vast government conspiracy is of course that GWB et. al. Either orchastrated, or allowed to happen and then embellished, 9/11. Of course, all of this hinges on a grand conspiracy being meticulously carried out by Bush Administration. I'm sorry. But THIS adminstration? The adminstration that brought you Iraq and Katrina? I'm sorry, but we've seen the MO for this adminstration and competence, just isn't it.
It's Sunnyvale. One word. No studly caps.
Perhaps you should get your facts straight and then reexamine your political identification.