I guess you're right, the pictures of the 8 year-olds in camo packing m-16s made me feel better when seeing their charred corpses pulled from the wreckage.
I've said it before (and linked before) but I guess you're a different AC. See #1 and #2. --
If the Linux community had an image of fairness and open mindedness they wouldn't be such a joke.
Ease up there Tonto. Looks to me like the shallowness of the article was pointed out fairly quickly and accurately (many eyes, shallow bugs). What you need to realize, before you flame an entire community, is that the most vocal and vehement among us, are also usually the youngest and dumbest. Much like society in general. You can't give the same credence to every post here, all posts ARE NOT created equally.
And I have a number of reason to hold a circle jerk around M$, mostly for the years of aggravation with using their products, and then their "competitiveness" that made the only possible competitor one that wasn't a company and couldn't be bought, marketed, or FUDed into non-existence.
So back-off bizatch, or login so I can see a history of your posts and see if I'm replying to an idiot, a troll, or Big Billy G himself.
Oh, and my.sig is my small personal effort to combat the multi-million dollar Buzzword campaign that M$ is spewing forth. Is it just me or does the face of the main actor in all their commercials just scream Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?
not by a longshot. I use it to find Phish and other live recordings of jam band tunes. Oh, and once I got a copy of a song from a CD I had, but scratched. Saved me $15, which I would rather burn than give to the RIAA. (oops, my bias slips out.)
IIRC, black people got that way from God's punishment of Cain for striking down Abel (could have it reversed and mispelled..)
Up until recently they could not hold the Priesthood (which is how power in the Church is passed out), but that was wisely ammended. Still there are very few blacks in the Church, but after attending a couple of black churches back in the day I can see why. Mormon religious ceremonies are long and boring and the puritan movement is historically caucasion, I believe.
The War in Heaven was between Jesus and Satan, both of which had a Plan for the rest of us. Jesus said, "Hey let 'em go do what they want, and the good ones can come back later." Satan said, "Because your glory is so great Father, they will be forced to always be good and glorify your name." (Satan is often painted as the annoying little brother). There was a war and 2/3 of the folks picked JC, the other third picked the S man. So we all got free will and some of us don't know what to do with it.;-)
This is all Mormon doctrine I learned a long time ago, so if I've butchered it, please correct me. --
AFAIK minors in the US are still citizens, and they still have rights.
Yep, every state has statutes that allow minors the right to be tried in court as adults.
Never mind that you can be sentenced to die 6 years before you're allowed to drink, 3 years before you're allowed to vote, 1 year before you're allowed to drive, and an infinite number of years before you're allowed to smoke a certain type of plant.
I used to think I lived in a "Free" country, then I realized that Free was a marketing term.
"You've got to take the power back." -Rage Against the Machine.
posted from inside the United States of Hypocrisy.
look s-t. You spout off way too often on stuff you have NO idea about.
What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten?
No, like most other major religions outsider are tolerated and encouraged to join up. The Mormon religion also has a doctrine on how un-believers will be given a chance to recieve the gospel after they die. When you hold incredibly high standards you get real good at tolerating those that don't, or you form a hate group. If you want to read about whipped and beaten read a little bit of Mormon history. Ever seen somebody tarred and feathered? You do know how Joseph Smith died right?
No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.
Whoever wrote this missed the point. It no CAFFEINE, no NICOTINE (i.e. all tobacco), no rated-R movies is also a big one. These are all things that various Prophets of the church have counciled against (the current leader of the church is called the Prophet)
Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.
If you replace ideas with ideals you would be closer, but still dead wrong. Every single one of the things they prohibit can cause severe health problems or unneeded trauma in one's life. The movie thing is to try and avoid unpure images being introduced into the brain, where they have a hard time getting out.
Giving unrestricted access to the internet is not the same as giving everyone a free adult check id number and free unmetered access to porn sites.
You haven't spent much time on the Net have you? I still don't think that filtering is the "right" thing to do, but avoiding the truth is not the way to prove your point. I prefer the "place Net-enabled computers in well-lit, high traffic areas" and let the patrons filer themselves. Very few people read Swank on the bus
Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.
No, that's for Congress to do. How do you impose a national speed limit, drinking age? Threaten to hold back funding for those that don't comply. Monkey see, monkey do. For a better picture of what Mormons believe at the root level go here
I am no longer a part of the Church by personal choice. This choice in Mormon terminoloy is called "Free Agency" (aka Free Will) and is regarded as one of the greatest gifts we recieved. We fought a war for it in Heaven, or so the story goes. They have faults, which MANY Internet sites are more than willing to point out, but the core of the religion is the family and most of the doctrine is designed to strengthen that aspect of life. Which is why I'm defending my family's beliefs here. And please don't bring up evolution, it's taught in the Book of Mormon.
The thing about it is (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Canadian law about rebroadcasting requires using the full broadcast, so the people watching online STILL saw all of WZZZ's commercials. The added cost of retransmitting is paid for by the other banner ads. So to watch online you have more ads and less quality, balanced by convenience. Seems fair to me, but then again the Internet doesn't scare me.
Like I said it my other post, media execs are scared, hurt, and unable to think rationally.
To the execs here however the idea behind iCrave is deplorable and seeks to destroy the corporations they have built.
Please tell the execs that they should spend 15 minutes online with their 15-year old sons (like the iCrave guy did) and see how neat the Internet is.
They view this as an afront to their life's work.
So they're scared and hurt. Hmmm, what do most animals do in that situation...oh yeah, lash out at anything that passes near-by.
It's unfortunate that having enough money gives you the power to stop technological progress. I guess it's not surprising since it lets you get away with murder too.
note: Keep moderating this as funny, unless you have a choice of three or four cable companies in your area and your cable bills have gone down over the last six years.
3. AOL Time Warner will effectuate such choice for consumers by negotiating arm's-length commercial agreements with both affiliated (such as AOL) and unaffiliated ISPs that wish to offer service on the AOL Time Warner broadband cable systems.
I can see the meeting.
"Welcome to the AOL/Time Warner ISP negotiations meeting. Glad you all could make it. Now, let me make this clear, even though AOL owns the cable and is in direct competition with all of you, we'd like to remind you that, althouth you will be negotiating with an AOL company, AOL will have no say in the matter and will not recieve preferential treatment." --
Pardon me, but how do you keep yourself at arms length from yourself?
And even if they could wouldn't their stockholders be beholden to tell them not to?
And that's why we'll win. Unless of course it never reaches public scrutiny, like say, if the same people prosecuting you controlled the media in this country.
Hopefully it won't reach that point (the prosecution not the controlling media, that's already here).
Too bad then you'd be circumventing Copy Protection to view Copyrighted Material. That's a felony in the U.S. (I KNOW you know about the DMCA). All they have to do now is make an effort to protect their IP and back it up with a well-armed police force.
You did know that Courtney Cox, Neve Campbell, and Jenny McCarthy are in it? Hotties are definitely news for nerds.
If you're not getting your "serious news" fix here, just start clicking away, you'll find it someplace, probably quicker than you can complain about it.
I don't see the harm in listening to music online and sharing it. I feel personally that this is a good thing for all parties involved. While the artist isn't directly compensated for my listening, they are not deprived of anything in any way. I realize that my depth of gratitude will not feed their children, but do know that if I like a band, and listen to it, they will get monetary compensation at some point.
Some would bring up lost potential profits at this point, but I don't see that as an issue. I prefer to think of it as promotion, marketing. A try before you buy, if you will.
I don't see any reason at this point to have large recording companies. I won't continue to support them.(period) They have already shown that the music is not important to them, the money is. If it was the artists making all the money we would be in a different situation.
I think the music should be more important and will continue to act in such a way that I feel will most likely lead to a future where thats the way it is.
I just hate to see artificial barriers to such an important part of our culture, and especially hate to see amazing technology wasted and limited for the profit of a few. I also think sharing the stuff you enjoy is a good thing. I'm not, in any way, for profiteering off of pirated goods, which, to be honest, is what I feel most of the recording industry is doing.
And to be completely honest I don't think the artist or owner should have ANY say whatsoever in who listens to their music. I do think they should be able to control who PROFITS from it, and should defend that right to the utmost, but simple distrubtion, no, I don't think that making a song gives you ultimate control over who gets to hear it.
I wouldn't feel so strongly about it if I didn't feel the popular music scene in this country was so desolate. I listened to crappy music for 15 years before I was even aware I had a choice, I've also studied the creation of and current power that media companies wield in this country and it scares me, so I fight.
You've gotten me thinking about a number of these things, and I could go on for some times, but I'll leave it here, thanks for a stimulating debate.
Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't seem wrong to you?
Yes.
My objection to the music industries business practices are long and wide. Now I see a system where they are no longer needed. Why? The multi-billion dollar distribution networks they have built up, and which used to be necessary to gain widespread play, are no longer needed. Paying for media on which the music is played, is no longer needed. The multi-million dollar promotions and advertising, are no longer needed.
I know you might not agree, but I would think (and although I don't make music, per se) that an artist would like to get the most widespread use of their art as possible. That used to be possible by signing on with a major label and using their incredible market power to spread the music. Now those major labels, instead of promoting the use of music, are fighting against it. An artist can achieve *worldwide* distribution just by saying it's o.k. But most won't, at least not yet. Why? Because they signed all their rights over to the record companies in hopes of widespread distribution and mad cash. Well, the mad cash motive (from the artist's perspective) is a pipe dream, even AFTER getting signed. Widespread distribution is very possible, all the music OWNERS (which are NOT the artists) have to do is not sue.
They should be able to decide how it is distributed, not you.
So you are saying that it is morally wrong for me to have some music and then tell my friends that I like it, would they like to listen to it? Then i can transfer it straight to them, with NO cost in any form whatsoever for the creator. They have NO loss and one more person gets to hear the music, with a positive spin. I still buy music, I still pay to see live shows, now I just have more music to choose from. Unless you think what's on the radio and MTV constitutes the entire spectrum of worthwhile music. For what it's worth I rarely traffic in Top40 music. Why? Because it sucks. My music needs are not being served by the record industry and I don't have the time to physically check small, indy stores to find cool tunes. I have the Internet and I'm gonna use it.
Sorry but (as an example) if all the guns in a place are declared illegal because of lobbying efforts by the knife people. Does that make using guns morally wrong? They are better technology that accomplish the same main purpose (in this case killing). Probably shouldn't have picked such a loaded example, but just because those defending the status quo ignore new technology,new opportunities, and new options, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Race is not the signifigant correlation to criminal activity.... economic status is!
But one could argue that race and economic status are related, because of my next point...
Despite the standard propaganda "anyone can become anything they want to in America!"
The possibility exists, the reality is far different. It's a basic outcome of free-market capitalism, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Some people like it, some don't. Guess which ones are which. Guess which ones are in jail.
--
I guess you're right, the pictures of the 8 year-olds in camo packing m-16s made me feel better when seeing their charred corpses pulled from the wreckage.
I've said it before (and linked before) but I guess you're a different AC. See #1 and #2.
--
or the ones our government burned alive in Waco.
--
Nothing Evil about this, just annoying
When your kid brother punches you, that's annoying.
When an 800lb gorilla punches you, that's evil. (because unless you figure out a way to soften the blow, you're dead)
--
and there's also a notable portion of (b)ullsh(it) in this thread..
--
it's called leverage. You own the desktop, you don't own the servers. Make the desktop *HAVE* to use your servers. Ta-da, you've own the server.
--
If the Linux community had an image of fairness and open mindedness they wouldn't be such a joke.
.sig is my small personal effort to combat the multi-million dollar Buzzword campaign that M$ is spewing forth. Is it just me or does the face of the main actor in all their commercials just scream Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?
.sig...
Ease up there Tonto. Looks to me like the shallowness of the article was pointed out fairly quickly and accurately (many eyes, shallow bugs). What you need to realize, before you flame an entire community, is that the most vocal and vehement among us, are also usually the youngest and dumbest. Much like society in general. You can't give the same credence to every post here, all posts ARE NOT created equally.
And I have a number of reason to hold a circle jerk around M$, mostly for the years of aggravation with using their products, and then their "competitiveness" that made the only possible competitor one that wasn't a company and couldn't be bought, marketed, or FUDed into non-existence.
So back-off bizatch, or login so I can see a history of your posts and see if I'm replying to an idiot, a troll, or Big Billy G himself.
Oh, and my
hmm, time to change the
--
The use of Napster is inherently illegal.
not by a longshot. I use it to find Phish and other live recordings of jam band tunes. Oh, and once I got a copy of a song from a CD I had, but scratched. Saved me $15, which I would rather burn than give to the RIAA. (oops, my bias slips out.)
--
IIRC, black people got that way from God's punishment of Cain for striking down Abel (could have it reversed and mispelled..)
;-)
Up until recently they could not hold the Priesthood (which is how power in the Church is passed out), but that was wisely ammended. Still there are very few blacks in the Church, but after attending a couple of black churches back in the day I can see why. Mormon religious ceremonies are long and boring and the puritan movement is historically caucasion, I believe.
The War in Heaven was between Jesus and Satan, both of which had a Plan for the rest of us. Jesus said, "Hey let 'em go do what they want, and the good ones can come back later." Satan said, "Because your glory is so great Father, they will be forced to always be good and glorify your name." (Satan is often painted as the annoying little brother). There was a war and 2/3 of the folks picked JC, the other third picked the S man. So we all got free will and some of us don't know what to do with it.
This is all Mormon doctrine I learned a long time ago, so if I've butchered it, please correct me.
--
Geeko fits better with the total lack of marketing know-how most geeks have. No wonder they picked it.
--
AFAIK minors in the US are still citizens, and they still have rights.
Yep, every state has statutes that allow minors the right to be tried in court as adults.
Never mind that you can be sentenced to die 6 years before you're allowed to drink, 3 years before you're allowed to vote, 1 year before you're allowed to drive, and an infinite number of years before you're allowed to smoke a certain type of plant.
I used to think I lived in a "Free" country, then I realized that Free was a marketing term.
"You've got to take the power back." -Rage Against the Machine.
posted from inside the United States of Hypocrisy.
--
look s-t. You spout off way too often on stuff you have NO idea about.
What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten?
No, like most other major religions outsider are tolerated and encouraged to join up. The Mormon religion also has a doctrine on how un-believers will be given a chance to recieve the gospel after they die. When you hold incredibly high standards you get real good at tolerating those that don't, or you form a hate group. If you want to read about whipped and beaten read a little bit of Mormon history. Ever seen somebody tarred and feathered? You do know how Joseph Smith died right?
No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.
Whoever wrote this missed the point. It no CAFFEINE, no NICOTINE (i.e. all tobacco), no rated-R movies is also a big one. These are all things that various Prophets of the church have counciled against (the current leader of the church is called the Prophet)
Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.
If you replace ideas with ideals you would be closer, but still dead wrong. Every single one of the things they prohibit can cause severe health problems or unneeded trauma in one's life. The movie thing is to try and avoid unpure images being introduced into the brain, where they have a hard time getting out.
Giving unrestricted access to the internet is not the same as giving everyone a free adult check id number and free unmetered access to porn sites.
You haven't spent much time on the Net have you? I still don't think that filtering is the "right" thing to do, but avoiding the truth is not the way to prove your point. I prefer the "place Net-enabled computers in well-lit, high traffic areas" and let the patrons filer themselves. Very few people read Swank on the bus
Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.
No, that's for Congress to do. How do you impose a national speed limit, drinking age? Threaten to hold back funding for those that don't comply. Monkey see, monkey do.
For a better picture of what Mormons believe at the root level go here
I am no longer a part of the Church by personal choice. This choice in Mormon terminoloy is called "Free Agency" (aka Free Will) and is regarded as one of the greatest gifts we recieved. We fought a war for it in Heaven, or so the story goes. They have faults, which MANY Internet sites are more than willing to point out, but the core of the religion is the family and most of the doctrine is designed to strengthen that aspect of life. Which is why I'm defending my family's beliefs here. And please don't bring up evolution, it's taught in the Book of Mormon.
--
looks like a script...
--
give 'em 10 years and 90% market share, by then they'll have some pretty big power drills.
--
The thing about it is (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Canadian law about rebroadcasting requires using the full broadcast, so the people watching online STILL saw all of WZZZ's commercials. The added cost of retransmitting is paid for by the other banner ads. So to watch online you have more ads and less quality, balanced by convenience. Seems fair to me, but then again the Internet doesn't scare me.
Like I said it my other post, media execs are scared, hurt, and unable to think rationally.
--
To the execs here however the idea behind iCrave is deplorable and seeks to destroy the corporations they have built.
Please tell the execs that they should spend 15 minutes online with their 15-year old sons (like the iCrave guy did) and see how neat the Internet is.
They view this as an afront to their life's work.
So they're scared and hurt. Hmmm, what do most animals do in that situation...oh yeah, lash out at anything that passes near-by.
It's unfortunate that having enough money gives you the power to stop technological progress. I guess it's not surprising since it lets you get away with murder too.
--
note: Keep moderating this as funny, unless you have a choice of three or four cable companies in your area and your cable bills have gone down over the last six years.
--
3. AOL Time Warner will effectuate such choice for consumers by negotiating arm's-length commercial agreements with both affiliated (such as AOL) and unaffiliated ISPs that wish to offer service on the AOL Time Warner broadband cable systems.
I can see the meeting.
"Welcome to the AOL/Time Warner ISP negotiations meeting. Glad you all could make it. Now, let me make this clear, even though AOL owns the cable and is in direct competition with all of you, we'd like to remind you that, althouth you will be negotiating with an AOL company, AOL will have no say in the matter and will not recieve preferential treatment."
--
Pardon me, but how do you keep yourself at arms length from yourself?
And even if they could wouldn't their stockholders be beholden to tell them not to?
--
And that's why we'll win. Unless of course it never reaches public scrutiny, like say, if the same people prosecuting you controlled the media in this country.
Hopefully it won't reach that point (the prosecution not the controlling media, that's already here).
--
/cut to Simpsons episode : Homer walking through the mall. He sees a giant chocolate chip cookie and moves in to investigate.
Homer: How much are the samples?
Cheery Worker: Their free.
(Homer gobbles the sample plate)
Homer: mmmm, more, more, give me more.
Cheery Worker: The full size cookies are $1.
Homer: Oh sure, get us addicted and then jack up the price!
--
Too bad then you'd be circumventing Copy Protection to view Copyrighted Material. That's a felony in the U.S. (I KNOW you know about the DMCA). All they have to do now is make an effort to protect their IP and back it up with a well-armed police force.
--
You did know that Courtney Cox, Neve Campbell, and Jenny McCarthy are in it? Hotties are definitely news for nerds.
If you're not getting your "serious news" fix here, just start clicking away, you'll find it someplace, probably quicker than you can complain about it.
--
Hmm, it looks like we're at an impasse.
I don't see the harm in listening to music online and sharing it. I feel personally that this is a good thing for all parties involved. While the artist isn't directly compensated for my listening, they are not deprived of anything in any way. I realize that my depth of gratitude will not feed their children, but do know that if I like a band, and listen to it, they will get monetary compensation at some point.
Some would bring up lost potential profits at this point, but I don't see that as an issue. I prefer to think of it as promotion, marketing. A try before you buy, if you will.
I don't see any reason at this point to have large recording companies. I won't continue to support them.(period) They have already shown that the music is not important to them, the money is. If it was the artists making all the money we would be in a different situation.
I think the music should be more important and will continue to act in such a way that I feel will most likely lead to a future where thats the way it is.
I just hate to see artificial barriers to such an important part of our culture, and especially hate to see amazing technology wasted and limited for the profit of a few. I also think sharing the stuff you enjoy is a good thing. I'm not, in any way, for profiteering off of pirated goods, which, to be honest, is what I feel most of the recording industry is doing.
And to be completely honest I don't think the artist or owner should have ANY say whatsoever in who listens to their music. I do think they should be able to control who PROFITS from it, and should defend that right to the utmost, but simple distrubtion, no, I don't think that making a song gives you ultimate control over who gets to hear it.
I wouldn't feel so strongly about it if I didn't feel the popular music scene in this country was so desolate. I listened to crappy music for 15 years before I was even aware I had a choice, I've also studied the creation of and current power that media companies wield in this country and it scares me, so I fight.
You've gotten me thinking about a number of these things, and I could go on for some times, but I'll leave it here, thanks for a stimulating debate.
--
I'll give it a whirl. I still like "free" but too many folks have used that to mean gratis, when I'm going for libre.
--
Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't seem wrong to you?
Yes.
My objection to the music industries business practices are long and wide. Now I see a system where they are no longer needed. Why? The multi-billion dollar distribution networks they have built up, and which used to be necessary to gain widespread play, are no longer needed. Paying for media on which the music is played, is no longer needed. The multi-million dollar promotions and advertising, are no longer needed.
I know you might not agree, but I would think (and although I don't make music, per se) that an artist would like to get the most widespread use of their art as possible. That used to be possible by signing on with a major label and using their incredible market power to spread the music. Now those major labels, instead of promoting the use of music, are fighting against it. An artist can achieve *worldwide* distribution just by saying it's o.k. But most won't, at least not yet. Why? Because they signed all their rights over to the record companies in hopes of widespread distribution and mad cash. Well, the mad cash motive (from the artist's perspective) is a pipe dream, even AFTER getting signed. Widespread distribution is very possible, all the music OWNERS (which are NOT the artists) have to do is not sue.
They should be able to decide how it is distributed, not you.
So you are saying that it is morally wrong for me to have some music and then tell my friends that I like it, would they like to listen to it? Then i can transfer it straight to them, with NO cost in any form whatsoever for the creator. They have NO loss and one more person gets to hear the music, with a positive spin. I still buy music, I still pay to see live shows, now I just have more music to choose from. Unless you think what's on the radio and MTV constitutes the entire spectrum of worthwhile music. For what it's worth I rarely traffic in Top40 music. Why? Because it sucks. My music needs are not being served by the record industry and I don't have the time to physically check small, indy stores to find cool tunes. I have the Internet and I'm gonna use it.
Sorry but (as an example) if all the guns in a place are declared illegal because of lobbying efforts by the knife people. Does that make using guns morally wrong? They are better technology that accomplish the same main purpose (in this case killing). Probably shouldn't have picked such a loaded example, but just because those defending the status quo ignore new technology,new opportunities, and new options, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
--