Excellent? Not really. This ruling really changes nothing. One is either anonymous or not. Reliance on laws, justice and other such wankery indicates that you were not anonymous when you posted your musings. Want an example? Anonymous Cowards are neither anonymous nor cowards. It may protect your karma, but, don't expect someone wont correlate info. and drudge up embarrassing comments ten years from now.
I can't wait to see the phrase "Legal expectation of anonymity". This all ties into why cameras in public places are such an abomination but that is another thread.
Progress does not depend on unreasonable people, it is based solely on reasonable people. How far did nazi germany get, what about soviet russia, maybe the great leap forward, the early french revolution?
Nice canard. All strong opinioned persons are Nazis. I like it!
In trying to adapt the world to yourself you leave out the others who disagree, the only way to get your way is then violence. That is why we will never see a democratic facist or communist government.
An appeal to a tyranny of the masses, how nice. Unfortunate that some moral absolutes may offend the mainstream. Since we are bringing up canards, slavery at one time was the will of the people, no?
Your entire outhouse of an argument rests on the overflowed cesspool of moral relativism. The assumption being, of course, that there are only two sides to a given argument and that the apporpriate solution is to simply meet in the middle. Propaganda what fun.
And while in your closed minded world there is only proof against the effectiveness of 'censorware', in the real world it is effective.
Oh. And this statement of fact is based on what? Your exhaustive research. Or is it based merely on your absolutist opinion that filtering software is appropriate and therefore all those who disagree are being "unreasonable."
Until you have a constitutional right to view all internet material
The Constitution is an explicit listing of the duties and powers of government. It is not an exhaustive list of the rights of men.
the government has the right to mandate filtering software for connections they help pay for.
Government has no rights, it is given privelages and duties. The restraint of speech is not one of those.
Moderators, please do not moderate me down because you disagree.
They should mod you down, however, because you are wrong. You are a hypocrite. And because you are attempting (poorly) to use sophistry to argue in support of restraint of speech as opposed to making a direct argument.
If you ever want to be taken seriously, you must take a more reasonable stance.
Ah yes, "be reasonable" the cry of the subversive.
Compromise is merely a tool used by the patient to undermine the desires of the opposition. Mainstream support is irrelevant in such issues because the mainstream does not care.
It is true that if the censors have the support of the people that this is a lost cause, however, allowing yourself to be demoralized by "being reasonable" will solve nothing.
Re:Information wants to be free - for the children
on
The Value Of Privacy
·
· Score: 2
Interesting? Moderators this is a troll. Spell it with me T R O L L. You can tell because of this statement:
If parents had a more Victorian attitude to bringing up youngsters, these problems would not exist.
The Victorian attitude is one of fetishizing the child and putting them in cute little costumes. Not something to strive for.
Most of the "classified" information was probably classified out of convenience. These big bureaucracies classify everything.
Even if the information was important it would seem like they would have something like rubberhose crypto for just such contingencies.
But, no let's not have reasonable classification procedures, or use ready made tools, let's spend money on more crap like Super Sekrit Briefcases. Love that groupthink.
The dot com hysteria was accompanied and spurred by the media showering us with images of 25 year old High School drop outs becoming paper millionaires in 48 hours. Las Vegas could use that kind of advertising.
The "high tech life style" portrayed in popular culture has become something to strive for. The reality is that it does not exist. It is the analogue of young girls depressed and sullen that what they see in the mirror does not match the airbrushed cover of Vogue.
Now that there has been a bust in the industry one can almost feel the sigh of relief from those who chose to persue an education, or a career as opposed to pie in the sky greed.
Ruby's main problem is it doesn't offer clear benefits over the existing solutions.
Yep, the cryptography world is similar to this. You have a lot of newbies offering up impenatrable algorithims demanding they be broken without realizing they are offering nothing that is not already available and worked on. Some are snake oil salesman others are well meaning but ignorant.
It is generally good that choices exist, but, let's face it every language that comes down the pike will have an evangelist behind it. Doesn't mean there is any substance there. Most people will be using what the company wants to anyway.
Personally, I go for quantity over quality when it comes to PCs. I would much rather have ten older 100Mhz boxes than a brand new P4 or Athlon anyday.
Right now I have:
P166
P6 200 Supermicro Dual with only one Proc.:(
PII 266
loptop PII 300 and a Multia
It is more fun to play with networking and secure communications than it is to play a game, at least for me. The last time I bought brand new non-ram hardware was about 10 months ago so that I could play Half-Life. That was worth it. Mostly though to run some flavor of Unix and pound out code the P166 works just as well as the others. It just doesn't compile as fast.
Honestly, if I had all the money in the world I would purchase exotic older hardware anyway.
I hate the interview segments; I hate it when they make fun of people who are being completely earnest and sincere. I hated them when Kilborn was host too; I can't pin this one on Stewart.
These can be very funny if done properly. One of the keys is to not necessarily be mean. Mean comedy is rarely funny. (There is a difference between offensive and mean). Also, in the past the political humor was funny on its own merit. I laugh easily at political comedy, even when I disagree with the stance that comedy is taking. Now unless you agree with the preconcieved notions of the writers, the comedy is not funny. Factually incorrect comedy is the worst. Kind of like "Sugar Free Chocolate, who's that for Ha Ha." Well, it is for diabetics jackass.
The rest of what you say I agree with. I am not a good judge of charisma, but, I would definately take a C.K. over a J.S. for a show like that any day.
Yes, I watched some of the election stuff and it was pretty good. I still wish they had gotten a non-comedian to be the anchor. And they need to get back their old writers if possible.
Exactly, I wasn't so much a Craig Kilborn fan as I was a fan of the writing during that time period. Jon Stewart may be able to improvise, but, it has to be funny improvisation. I think J.S. can be funny, but, his self deprecating shtik gets old on a show like that. Craig was a talking head who could deliver the jokes with aplomb and not let whatever personality he has get in the way. J.S.'s delivery is infused with his personality and I just got bored with it. Plus the writing is not up to snuff.
Yeah, thats the guy. Whenever I watch the new correspondents it looks like they have an outline called "How to do a funny interview" by A. Whitney Brown which they follow word for word. I started to see patterns in what they did to try and get a laugh and it just stopped being funny.
I used to watch The Daily Show religeously when Craig Kilborn and the original correspondents were there. Jon Stewart's self deprecating style gets old fast and now I find the show almost intollerable.
The newer correspondents and writers are hacks and the whole show feels contrived. I can't remember that correspondent's name from SNL who was originally on there, but, when he left, right before Craig did, the show died.
Ratings themeselves are not the problem. The problem is that producers of a product will castrate what is essentially adult oriented entertainment to take advantage of the lucritive sub-adult market.
Think about the Spawn movie. Think about the summer PG-13 crapfest which starts every May.
While this is their right, an argument is easily made that ratings are damaging to the world of entertainment for those above the age of 20. It is not as cut and dried as you state above.
I'd rather a trailer be slow than have it give everything away. Geez, now there is probably some marketing guy reading your comment splicing together a trailer with the special suprise ending. Gotta get peoples attention. Thanks alot.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent? Not really. This ruling really changes nothing. One is either anonymous or not. Reliance on laws, justice and other such wankery indicates that you were not anonymous when you posted your musings . Want an example? Anonymous Cowards are neither anonymous nor cowards. It may protect your karma, but, don't expect someone wont correlate info. and drudge up embarrassing comments ten years from now.
I can't wait to see the phrase "Legal expectation of anonymity". This all ties into why cameras in public places are such an abomination but that is another thread.
Progress does not depend on unreasonable people, it is based solely on reasonable people. How far did nazi germany get, what about soviet russia, maybe the great leap forward, the early french revolution?
Nice canard. All strong opinioned persons are Nazis. I like it!
In trying to adapt the world to yourself you leave out the others who disagree, the only way to get your way is then violence. That is why we will never see a democratic facist or communist government.
An appeal to a tyranny of the masses, how nice. Unfortunate that some moral absolutes may offend the mainstream. Since we are bringing up canards, slavery at one time was the will of the people, no?
Your entire outhouse of an argument rests on the overflowed cesspool of moral relativism. The assumption being, of course, that there are only two sides to a given argument and that the apporpriate solution is to simply meet in the middle. Propaganda what fun.
And while in your closed minded world there is only proof against the effectiveness of 'censorware', in the real world it is effective.
Oh. And this statement of fact is based on what? Your exhaustive research. Or is it based merely on your absolutist opinion that filtering software is appropriate and therefore all those who disagree are being "unreasonable."
Until you have a constitutional right to view all internet material
The Constitution is an explicit listing of the duties and powers of government. It is not an exhaustive list of the rights of men.
the government has the right to mandate filtering software for connections they help pay for.
Government has no rights, it is given privelages and duties. The restraint of speech is not one of those.
Moderators, please do not moderate me down because you disagree.
They should mod you down, however, because you are wrong. You are a hypocrite. And because you are attempting (poorly) to use sophistry to argue in support of restraint of speech as opposed to making a direct argument.
If you ever want to be taken seriously, you must take a more reasonable stance.
Ah yes, "be reasonable" the cry of the subversive. Compromise is merely a tool used by the patient to undermine the desires of the opposition. Mainstream support is irrelevant in such issues because the mainstream does not care.
It is true that if the censors have the support of the people that this is a lost cause, however, allowing yourself to be demoralized by "being reasonable" will solve nothing.
The Victorian attitude is one of fetishizing the child and putting them in cute little costumes. Not something to strive for.
Most of the "classified" information was probably classified out of convenience. These big bureaucracies classify everything.
Even if the information was important it would seem like they would have something like rubberhose crypto for just such contingencies.
But, no let's not have reasonable classification procedures, or use ready made tools, let's spend money on more crap like Super Sekrit Briefcases . Love that groupthink.
The dot com hysteria was accompanied and spurred by the media showering us with images of 25 year old High School drop outs becoming paper millionaires in 48 hours. Las Vegas could use that kind of advertising.
The "high tech life style" portrayed in popular culture has become something to strive for. The reality is that it does not exist. It is the analogue of young girls depressed and sullen that what they see in the mirror does not match the airbrushed cover of Vogue.
Now that there has been a bust in the industry one can almost feel the sigh of relief from those who chose to persue an education, or a career as opposed to pie in the sky greed.
Ruby's main problem is it doesn't offer clear benefits over the existing solutions.
Yep, the cryptography world is similar to this. You have a lot of newbies offering up impenatrable algorithims demanding they be broken without realizing they are offering nothing that is not already available and worked on. Some are snake oil salesman others are well meaning but ignorant.
It is generally good that choices exist, but, let's face it every language that comes down the pike will have an evangelist behind it. Doesn't mean there is any substance there. Most people will be using what the company wants to anyway.
Here is a login free link
- P166
:(
It is more fun to play with networking and secure communications than it is to play a game, at least for me. The last time I bought brand new non-ram hardware was about 10 months ago so that I could play Half-Life. That was worth it. Mostly though to run some flavor of Unix and pound out code the P166 works just as well as the others. It just doesn't compile as fast.P6 200 Supermicro Dual with only one Proc.
PII 266
loptop PII 300
and a Multia
Honestly, if I had all the money in the world I would purchase exotic older hardware anyway.
I hate the interview segments; I hate it when they make fun of people who are being completely earnest and sincere. I hated them when Kilborn was host too; I can't pin this one on Stewart.
These can be very funny if done properly. One of the keys is to not necessarily be mean. Mean comedy is rarely funny. (There is a difference between offensive and mean). Also, in the past the political humor was funny on its own merit. I laugh easily at political comedy, even when I disagree with the stance that comedy is taking. Now unless you agree with the preconcieved notions of the writers, the comedy is not funny. Factually incorrect comedy is the worst. Kind of like "Sugar Free Chocolate, who's that for Ha Ha." Well, it is for diabetics jackass.
The rest of what you say I agree with. I am not a good judge of charisma, but, I would definately take a C.K. over a J.S. for a show like that any day.
Yes, I watched some of the election stuff and it was pretty good. I still wish they had gotten a non-comedian to be the anchor. And they need to get back their old writers if possible.
cause the show had good writers
Exactly, I wasn't so much a Craig Kilborn fan as I was a fan of the writing during that time period. Jon Stewart may be able to improvise, but, it has to be funny improvisation. I think J.S. can be funny, but, his self deprecating shtik gets old on a show like that. Craig was a talking head who could deliver the jokes with aplomb and not let whatever personality he has get in the way. J.S.'s delivery is infused with his personality and I just got bored with it. Plus the writing is not up to snuff.
A. Whitney Brown
Yeah, thats the guy. Whenever I watch the new correspondents it looks like they have an outline called "How to do a funny interview" by A. Whitney Brown which they follow word for word. I started to see patterns in what they did to try and get a laugh and it just stopped being funny.
I used to watch The Daily Show religeously when Craig Kilborn and the original correspondents were there. Jon Stewart's self deprecating style gets old fast and now I find the show almost intollerable.
The newer correspondents and writers are hacks and the whole show feels contrived. I can't remember that correspondent's name from SNL who was originally on there, but, when he left, right before Craig did, the show died.
Ratings themeselves are not the problem. The problem is that producers of a product will castrate what is essentially adult oriented entertainment to take advantage of the lucritive sub-adult market.
Think about the Spawn movie. Think about the summer PG-13 crapfest which starts every May.
While this is their right, an argument is easily made that ratings are damaging to the world of entertainment for those above the age of 20. It is not as cut and dried as you state above.
I'd rather a trailer be slow than have it give everything away. Geez, now there is probably some marketing guy reading your comment splicing together a trailer with the special suprise ending. Gotta get peoples attention. Thanks alot.
Damn I miss the old net, before the bean-counters and lawyers got involved... :-(
t ml
See ya in court.
http://www.despair.com/demotivators/frownonthis.h