Only when we realize that every little scrap of something that people put there heart and love into is art, will anything change in this world. Maybe this wasn't great art, (there were some interesting camera shots), but you need a serious attitude adjustment to say that this wasn't even artistic. I know only this one thing. Until we understand and believe that every little thing that people create with their emotions, time, passion and love is art and respected for the effort the artist made, and until we all wake up and realize that the only thing worth doing is art, will we never be free of all of our hate, prejudice, intolerance, wars, poverty, and destruction.
I assume you are being sarcastic here, he knows why he was put under survailance. But I would like to take this time to point out that the "information" you presented is factually incorrect.
Higher Cannabinoid yields are better for the user. THC
is a medically safe compound with no longterm effects. That is why we have Marinol, because THC is safe. Smoking it, on the other hand, isn't so good for you. So a higher potency means less smoke for the same lvl of high. You seem to cast it in a bad light, it isn't in any logical sense.
The potency of THC in a Cannabis plant varries on several conditions. Freshness, plant genes, growth practices all effect how much THC are in the plant. This was just as true in the 60's as it is now. High yielding plants were available in the 60's just as now. 30 years of breeding cannot alter a plant that much. Low THC yield plants still abound.
If you spent the time to write your reply, consider spending that time reading up on the subject you are replying to. Reference links,
such as one on the actual potency of Cannabis,
would go a long way in helping your argument out.
One of two things will happen.
1) Content consumers will rise up and assert their rights to get, use, and disseminate knowledge in a responsible manner. Publishing companies will profit by the great increase in appetite for knowledge.
2) Content controllers will keep the consumers locked into proprietary and exclusive contracts and technologies. Consumers will be heavily burdened with worring about if they have made a "mistake" in desimating and using knowledge that they gained in this "contract". Producers will make the same amount of money. A given since they set up the rules to mirror the current environment.
It is my greatest hope that content producers wake up and see that there is far more money to be made in a open environment than a closed one. I also hope that basic economics come into play and the "open" content providers are far more profitable than their closed counterpart, and thus making "open" content not only a ethical choice, but a sensible economic one as well.
Time will tell.
As open content providers ourselves, we just need to continue to prostylitze (bad sp) the advantages of open content, use open content, and protest content from producers that "lock in" the consumer. But it is hard, given that closed content providers produce a lot of "interesting" content. Content that can entertain (think DVD) and inform, (in the case of books with insane publishers like most large American publishers)
I continue to believe that people will do the right thing, and economic arguments are on the side of the "right thing". Hopefully it is only necessary to be vigilant.
If not, it will be necessary to protest these "closed" producers and the legal institutions that make this possible.
As for what will happen, we shall see. We shall see....
The reason that she feels that this is how the Egyptians aligned the pyrmids is that if they used this method, then the earlier pyramids would be out of alingment by a certain amount and the latter pyramids would be off a different amount. This is what she observed.
So given the deviations of the pyramids directions, she has come up with a theory that fits all the data. As it seems to be the best theory for accounting how the pyramids where aligned, It will remain so either forever if it is true, or until a theory that better describes the actual methond is proven to fit the data.
Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here,
but this is ridiculous. First, it was letting AOLers on to Usenet. Then it was the plethora of ISP's and all the newbie net users. Remember the CDA? Submarine net patents? DMCA? I feel like I've had a run in with one million Michele Triola's, and I'm no Lee Marvin.
I'm going to propose something radical, something elitist, something morally wrong, something curmudgeonly. But I remember the "Good Old Days". Well, they are not that old. And at 9600 baud, "Good" is a relative term. But I'll loose the bandwidth. I'll lose the web. I'll lose everything except mail, usenet, telnet, ftp, and a small smattering of other services. But I want them gone. The users. Almost all of them. Everyone who first got online after 92, maybe up to 94.
Maybe this is flamebait. Maybe this is a troll. I don't know. I don't care. I'm seeing red. Nothing but crimson red. We had everything we needed back then. Gopher, usenet, mail, and muds. It was the holy quartet. Everyone new something about computers. You couldn't get online if you didn't. Remember typing in slip manually? How about hand timing a script to pick up as soon as PPP connected? Everybody had to do this. Sure, we couldn't email our mom's then. But I'll give that back too. To be on the net was something that only you understood. Your family didn't know or care. Hell, they couldn't think of a reason they would use it. They were right.
Now I know what you are thinking. The net is too powerful to keep away from everyone. Its draw is irresistible. Like moths to a flame, people are drawn to information. Like Stella Liebeck to her coffee cup, the masses came to the net. And both were pissed when it was hot. Sometimes, it is better to never serve coffee in the first place. We thought community, they thought lawsuits. We though information, they thought "of the children". We though porn... Well, they thought the same thing. They cannot always be wrong, you know.
And speaking of the children, how come I don't hear about parents complaining about all of those 8 year old drivers out there. Oh, 8 year olds cannot drive? What does this logically imply Skippy? Really? If I truly feel that the net is as dangerous as a car, I shouldn't let my kids use it just like I don't let them drive a car? Nah, that is too much. I'll just demand for laws to protect them. Lord knows I'm not going to.
I'm not seriously proposing that we get rid of the "masses". I know it is impossible. But we should have kept it from them. Somehow. Maybe like a clue server on netrek. We could have kept all that knowledge and power to ourselves. The net would have been smaller, but we would have had so much more power because of it. Like gods among men, we could have levied our advantage to get sensible preemptive laws put into place. We knew they were coming. We should have prepared.
In short, we had it all, we gave it away. It doesn't suck yet, but it could. And we could have prevented it. Maybe we still can, but we definitely could have by acting earlier.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Are you willing to be that martyr?
I believe that I speak for anyone who truly cares about freedom when I say,
Yes.
You see, if we all would freely give our lives for the cause of freedom and liberty, then none of us would have to. What I have to ask you is, what would have to happen to get you to preserve liberty and freedom with your life?
----
crulx@iaxs.net ---
I have a user id of 3223.
Everything I say should be modded up to a +5.
Some genius may do just that. Then some genius will have to pay for a bunch of bandwidth and for the service while his users get everything for free. Some genius will get bored of this, some genius will stop the service.
Actually, how will it flop? Do you seriously believe that this small service (probably part of someone's job in redhat already) will bankrupt Redhat? or that dedicating a small percentage of their bandwidth will cost them so much that they will have to shut down the service? The idea may not be wildly sucessful like they hope, but it will generate revenue at little expense to them.
If you think that the Linux Boat is about not paying for your OS, I suggest you look at the boat that you are on, because it is not the Linux boat.
---
Crulx
crulx@iaxs.net ---
I have a user id of 3223.
Everything I say should be modded up to a +5.
The water has already been tested. Your phone has already been wiretapped. As has mine, as has the rest of the US's. Ever hear of CALEA? It mandates that telecomunications companies have technical equipment that allows the government to wiretap any phone in the US. (with a court order of course *snicker*) This is as per 47 USC, CHAPTER 9. Read more about it at EFF, one of the few orginizations left standing between us and 1984
I would be willing to bet that the FBI was suppriesed by the outrage from Carnivore. They already did this sort of thing to all the phones in the US and nobody peeped. I feel that the only reason we are hearing about it is that they made a couple of mistakes that they did not make with CALEA.
They gave it a name. And not just any name, but a really nasty name. Big mistake. If you don't want your kid to be harassed, don't name him "Dateraper". They should have done what they always have done, simply call it "part of our comprehensive wiretapping system"
They put it in a box that they installed. Woo. Scary! What could this black box do?!?!? Why not just force the ISP's to all have a computer that is up to a certain spec and runs FBI approved programs. That is what they did for the phone companies. Seemed to work well there.
Overestimated Apathy. They won't do this again. They will be sneaky next time.
So there you have it. It wasn't a small step towards a police state, It was a stumble on the rocks in their general stroll to it. They won't make the same mistake again.
----
crulx
crulx@iaxs.net
---
I have a user id of 3223.
Everything I say should be modded up to a +5.
booker said: To which I'd say... most Westerners take a free nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.
Richard Stevens said: It's really easy to say that when you've got a full belly and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future, isn't it?
There is this thing in logic called an Ad Hominem fallacy. You just used it. You didn't mention anything about why you thought that the author's premise that Westerns feel that freedom is taken for granted by most Westerner's, including yourself. Instead, you claimed that it was easy to say this because of certain conditions about booker's life. I imagine you wanted to tie that into your earlier point about stability, but instead you went arwy and made a logical fault. Please try to avoid these sorts of errors, or people will start to think you are a troll as that tatic is often used by them. If people think you are a troll, they will stop listening to you (that is the internet standard way of dealing with them). If your point is to communicate on/. , then this will be counter to your goals and thus unbenificial to you.
And who are you to judge the importance of the stability of the state? What if the state is engaged in wrongdoing? Should we preserve stability at all costs? Seems like a strange end to strive for... Sigh. You really have no concept of the real world, do you? The state had better be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing before you start acting up, because chances are you'd make matters much worse in the process of trying to "improve" things.
Again, an Ad Hominem. What does his haveing "no concept of the real world" have to do with his feelign that freedom is more important than stability? I can think of a few reasons, but you make no clear arguments. Do you mean to tie it in with your next point about the state needing to "be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing..."? Is that what you claim "real world" knowledge to be? I'm sure you can see that many people would disagree. If you want to make any points, you need to elaborate.
And look at your logic in the second line. If you start "acting up" before the state is "engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing..." then you will end up making "matters much worse".
This seems to be the fundimental premise of your argument. Thus the rest of your argument suffers from a falicy know as petitio principii, Begging the question. Your argument looks like this.. 1) The government is not "engaged in a damn good deal of wrondoing. (supposedly proved by the fact that things are stable and not every person in the nation is complaining) 2) If you act up and the government is not doing wrong then you will make matters much "worse in the process of trying to "improve" things. " 3) You do not want to make matters worse (definition of worse for most rational people) Therefore, do not act up. (I think that conclusion can safely be implied by your comments. Especially comments below about people who have the power to make life miserable for everyone) You have not shown 1 to be the case. Nor have you explained why 2 is correct. So your conclusion has not been shown. Please explain the following.
Why is invasion of not a "damn good deal of wrongdoing"?
What is a good deal of wrongdoing?
What is the definition of "acting up"?
Why is premise 2 correct? Why is acting up only good for for large amounts of wrongness and not small amounts.
You need to prove your premises.
Often, though, "stability" is a placated populace, happily listening to Britney Spears and munching on Cheetos, and threats to that notion of "stability" are dealt with severely. That sort of stability generates the big bucks.
That's all what you've chosen to do with the fact that you're rich and content enough to not have to worry about whether rebel (or government) militia leaders are going to come to your house and steal all your food (at best).
This is a non sequitur. How does this follow from his statements above?
People in the Western world (especially the US) are generally well-off enough that freedom can coexist with stability. They don't want to lose what they have. However, when you start getting desperate elements in the population (who have the power to make life miserable for everyone), the story changes.
Both you and the poster make several arguments with the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Just because most people are complacent with stability, does not justify your arugment that stability is more important than "not acting up". booker makes some of the same arugments.
Please, if you want to prove your point, choose a logical standpoint to go from. Your arguments will sound more professional and will less likely get you labled as a troll. (And there is somethign I hope we can both agree upon.) --- crulx crulx@iaxs.net
It's been noted before in this thread, but add Martin Luther King jr. to your thinking, and it would indicate you're wrong. The same would probably go for Nelson Mandela, Steven Biko and Mahatma Gandhi.
These people were simply figureheads for movements that represented changes caused by external pressures. (Colonialism falling out of favor, external economic pressures, international ostracism, desire not to be compared to Nazi Germany, etc.) They had no real power.
You dramaticaly understate the complexity of "real power". Power, simply defined, is the ability to get your way. These people believed in something that did not exist in their world. The made changes and comitments in their lives that very much affected the real world. Gandhi exerted enormous power. Enough to change the government of an entire nation. That other people believed in him and his goals (and thus exerted the "external pressure") is a fact of human nature. Power is amplified by others following you, true. But to say Ghandi only wielded "fake power" and yet let a movement to free a nation means that we would have to throw out every rational definition of power. Would colonialism have been abandoned eventually? Yes, but on a much different timescale than Ghandi wanted and achieved.
Do this for me, go on a hunger strike for a cause you believe and see who listens to you. Ghandi could stop eating and national borders would change. You tell me who has real power.
Also remember that when a 'civilized' country like GB can do it, it makes it so much easier for dictatorships to do the same.
The dictatorships would be doing it anyway.
I will agree with your point here. Dictators do do this. Making it "easier for them to do it" is not an argument for or against these sorts of behaviors.
But if these behaviors are wrong, then it does not matter who does them. They are wrong nevertheless. I'm responding to another one of your posts on that issue.
I sit today with the journalist who wrote that story. I take a bite of chicken. He eats some toast. He has been a journalist for ten years. I eat more chicken. He chews. Friends say that he sometimes chews with his mouth open.
He tells me that he never went to college, but his daddy got him this job. I chew now. He drinks some milk. He has a milk moustache. He tells me he has written about two articles. The rest of the time he is a janitor. He chews again. He puts some jelly on the toast. He takes another bite. I chew. He chews.
I ask him how long he has been working at the Gazette. He replies, "Three years." Other journalists that have interviewed him say that he chews with his mouth open. He informs me that he interviewed some guy who ate a bunch of sugar and did something about online books. He recounts a story of how much garlic this person eats. He takes a bite of toast. He chews. I chew.
I ask him if he chews with his mouth open. He says no. I know better, I have ate with him.
Not that it discredits your argument, but most people in the US DO live in metropolitan areas. 1998 US census projectsions have the following Metro Population 216,478,090 Non Metro Population 53,820,434 So there is only a market of 53 million people for the papers that you are talking about. Katz is completely correct in assuming that most of the papers are delivered to metro areas and read by metro citizens. It is nearly inarguable that local papers will not die in the next 20 years. But what about the larger, more "wired" metro populations? Do they seriously have a need for paper based news? It is a very interesting question.
I personally find myself much better informed by not reading the paper and using that time to read news websites. That, coupled with the complete misrepresentation by the media on technology issues, makes paper based news just hard to handle. However, the local collage news paper (U of MN Daily) is filled with interesting local news and events that I care about. But I only read that because it is free. *grin*
In short, I think that papers will definately live on in the local scene. Most likely, they will be religated there as more and more people get online and have less and less need for world news. Perhaps there will be a second wind in subscribership when they only report local issues and news. I myself would sign up for such a paper. In the end, time will tell.
Well, it really really depends on what you're doing on the net. There are apparently people happy with WebTV.
But no one would argue that they are using the internet to its fullest communication ability. From what I have seen, when people go to buy a computer, they want it to be fully utilized. People with WebTv are skimming the surface, and unless they believe Microsoft's hype about WebTv, they know it. (The argument that most believe the hype is for another time)
Um well yes they do actually, if you buy NT Server...And if you're using FrontPage...
My point was that a webserver (hell, and browser for that matter, despite the DOJ trial) is part of the essential ocmputer componants that you should receive when you get an OS. Yes, there are tons of pay and free webservers for Windows. None of them come with the generic OS. And most people don't understand that they can get and install them. If it came default and already preinstalled, like RedHat, they have a much larger chance of using it. And this use would increase the user's connectivity and ability to disseminate information. If the feature's author states this as the highest goal, then the OS matters.
me> Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box? Uh yes, actually it works just fine for my needs, thank you.
Dude, the program sucks. It emulates vt100. No color. Its configuration is simple, but incomplete. It has serious problems if it cannot resolve a domain name (It can hang). (Haven't checked the win98 version, but that was true in the older ones) But I understand this can be a personal preference, so I'll drop the point.
Who's denying anyone?
Denying was a bad choice of words. I should have said, not making easily accessible. It amounts to the same thing when you are looking for a low learning curve. If all this technology is supposed to make everyone communicate easier, then it should be defaulted to do just that. Not require someone to download a webserver and set everything up themselves.
As for wanting to turn their computer off, with the advent of DSL and other "always on" internet technologies, the startup and shutdown process is going to become less and less frequent with home users. I think we are seeing trends in this direction. I'd like more numbers on this though.
As far as box crackers goes, you are right in some respects. People will not want to deal with the hazards. Distro's should come with a completely empty cgi-bin directory. Most webservers that server only static content are pretty "hardened". And if more and more people leave their computers always on, extremely unsecure OS's like Windows are going to be taking more hits from trojan's than crackers anyway.
My point is that if expressive power is what is going to fuel internet growth and use, and is its main benefit to society, then the OS you choose does make a difference in that it defines what you think your computer can easily do as opposed to going out and doing work and learning about things that may not interest you for youself.
And who knows, people are pretty interested in what is lying around on their computer. If your Mom may become interested in the source of her webserver if it was just sitting there. Stranger things have happend. *grin*
This was a good, well thought out feature. However, I feel compelled to take you to task for one point. The OS I and others use to connect to the internet really, really does matter. The reasons for this are the following.
The os and assorted programs define what you are able to do with your computer out of the box. People keep saying that if internet users really wanted a X feature out of the box, the market presures would make it happen. Quite frankly, this is just not true. Due to the Microsoft hegemony, people have a skewed vision of what their OS can do. Many people want their own website but feel it is too hard to get server space without the anoying popups and banner adds. If they kewn and felt that a webserver should come with the OS, would a company like Microsoft give their webserver away? Web serving is a fundimental communication principle that the net uses, but is mostly unavailble on the largest user OS and definately not, in the box.
Users have a skewed view of what services that they can use out of the box. Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box? Compare that to a Unix telnet. How about IRC? These are fundimental communication technolgies that the 'enlighteners/internalizers' cannot use out of the box because of their OS. If communication is the key to the net (which I feel it is) then how could their OS not matter?
To return to the subject of services, can anyone imagine their Unix box without telnetd? How about ftpd? Sendmail (or related mail tech)? People cannot utilize their machine to its fullest sense because their OS does not allow that use. Ask yourself, if those services came default in Windows historically and the next release they were taken away, would people not care? They would be furious because their ability to communicate.
If these people are flocking to AOL and MS because of its ease of use, does that mean they should be denied basic computational and communicative power because they chose a path with a low learning curve? Currently, these people's expressive ablity is limited because they have to go out and typically purchase hundreds of dollars of extra software to get these services. They are seen as extras when really they are almost fundimental rights. Their OS has limited them.
If the people who are flocking to the internet are really going to spend time creating ideas, they need to be able to communicate them. You mention several technologies that have tremendously enhanced people's expressive power. Now, because of the tool that they choose to use, that power is limited. So honestly, I do feel that the OS matters. And not just a little bit, but a LOT. Until people use an OS that provides programs that fully utilize internet services and give easy access to contenet serving, they will be intellectually hampered and unable to realize the full communacative potential that we both feel that they have. Crulx
Re:Sick of "We Don't Want Personal Stuff Here."
on
Geeks in Suits
·
· Score: 1
Hi "Who Cares?" guy. I'm Crulx! *grin* I wasn't trying to directly stab at you in particular, I just wanted to show what I thought/. was about. I'm sure it is the same with you.
About that "human experience" thing, I just wrote a few paragraphs and it is way off topic. We'll save it for another time. Sufficed to say, that while relevant is relevant, I'm feel that everything is equally relevant. (which of course destroys the concept, I realize)
As for a general editorial decline in/. , that may or may not be. But Rob posted this thread. As he has posted personal events in his and Jeff and the rest of the gang's life time and time again. And while there is nothing wrong with putting it on his homepage, there is nothing wrong with putting it up here either. You feel differently, which is fine. I can see your point. But my point is it is exactly having the/. crew posting what interests them on home site, including personal stories, that caused the success of/.
As for the nation turning to Walter C for news, it was exactly this sort of television reporting style that persuaded the entire world that you could learn everything about a particular event in under 10 min. The fact is, you learn less about something because you saw it on TV news.(I.e. you think you understand it so you rarely go learn more about it. I could spend hours discussing why.)
Maybe the/. gang needs to create a "personal story" icon and allow people not to read it. But I'm positive those who do not will loose something very wonderful about/.
Crulx crulx@iaxs.net
Sick of "We Don't Want Personal Stuff Here."
on
Geeks in Suits
·
· Score: 5
Let me preface this by saying that I understand that slashdot has a target audience. But seriously, do comments like "Who Cares? Why should I care about your personal life." really need to be tossed around? Which one of you has not told someone else about your personal life? Even if the setting didn't quite match, like Monday morning at work. Every single one of you does this in some way or another. You tell your Coworkers you went sledding for the weekend. Just because this site has many visitors, does that change things? Would anybody complain if this were on a web site that got only 20 people a day?
Let me make a few points.
The web is about communication. Pure and simple. It really doesn't do anything else except transmit knowledge from one place to another. CmdrTaco wished to communicate something about his life. This is no less, and no more, relevant than the DeCSS injunction posts because they both deal with the human experience.
No one will argue that Hemos and CmdrTaco and the rest of the/. gang have given vast chunks of their life up to this website. In their little remaining time they do non/. things. They have in the past, and will continue to in the future hopefully, posted several of the (remaining after/. work ) personal events in their lives. This fosters a sense of community and gives greater value to all the posts because it gives you a connection to the crew that makes this possible. Again, they are communicating the human experience through mostly news, but other tidbits as well.
If you come to/. for a good spot to stay current in technology, great. But ask yourself, why not the hundreds of other weblogs that do the same thing? Why not the major news outlets? It is probably the/. community itself. The monster of this site's editors sick and twisted minds. *grin* This community was created because we knew we could get the technical information we want and need, but without the dissatisfying taste that we get when we go to other, blander, less human web sites.
So/. really is about the human experience. It really is about the lives of its creators and editors as much as the news it brings to us. While it is true that if it were all about what the gang did over their weekend, we would leave. If it were all tech, I guarantee we probably wouldn't stay forever. You cannot befriend Tech news. You don't feel like you "kinda know it". That is not true of/.
I'll conclude with this exercise What is the CNN tech new editor's favorite technology? What is Hemos' favorite technology? The proof is in the pudding.
Although these researchers may have been the first to actually conclusively prove that Selective Visual Attention is a serial process, most of the recient evidence was pointing in this direction. Most research agrees that selective attention
consists of two functionally independent, hierarchical stages: An early, pre-attentive stage that operates without capacity limitation and in parallel across the entire visual field, followed by a later, attentive limited-capacity stage that can deal with only one item (or at best a few items) at a time. When items pass from the first to the second stage of processing, these items are considered to be selected. (Theeuwes 1993, p. 97f, original italics)
Now wether or not this researcher is refering to the first or second stage is not clear from the article. As the reasearch had the subjects looking for a red or green block with a nick in it, I assume he is not making a claim about the first stage. This stage has always been considered parallel and he would have to prove it is not with a single feature task, not a multiple one like he used. However, from the tone of the article and the quote, it seem that he IS making this claim.
If the author is making the claim that single feature detection is serial, I feel that his experiment will be soundly ripped apart by most Psychological researchers as we have a large convincing body of evidence that this stage is parallel. If he is not making this claim, then he really wasn't adding anything new to the scientific body because we already KNEW that the second stage was serial.
I couldn't agree more with Katz. The media has constantly and nearly unanimously failed to understand even the most basic points of the New World Connectivity. I wonder if it is possible for them to understand that it is about connection with other human beings and connection to a large source of information. They only point they do seem to get is that global networking has a "newness" for most users. (Although not to many that read/.) Then applying a Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc style of argument, everything else that is new and breaks the mold ends up being due directly to the "internet". The mainstream media, and most of the mainstream for that matter, honestly believe that the "net" is the cause of anything new that they come across. Highschool shootings, the most recent Eastern Europe crisis, even terrorism under the guise of "cyber terrorism" (WTF?) are only a few examples of things, if not expressly caused by the arrival of massive internetworking, at the very least have a high correlation which amounts to a causal relationship to most journalists. And if this is not alone enough to send chills down your spine, the very same journalists refuse to do the most basic research into their topic they are reporting on that would give them the necessary information to not make the same mistakes. (Take the "hacker"/"cracker" misuse as an example.) In conclusion, we NEED to find more and better ways of making sure that reporting is done with the understanding of the technologies (at least on a human level) involved in their stories because these journalists report/reflect on the minds of the "masses" and thus ultimately the politician. The rest of that argument is left to the reader.
Sing Along to: On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
on
Shel Silverstein Dies
·
· Score: 1
Oh, we're big rock singers. We got golden fingers. And we're loved everywhere we go. We sing about beauty, And we sing about truth At ten thousand dollars a show. We take all kinds of pills To give us all kind of thrills, But the thrill we've never known Is the thrill that'll getcha When you get your picture On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Rolling Stone... Wanna see my picture on the cover. Stone... Wanna buy five copies for my Mother. Stone... Wanna see my smiling face On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
I got a freaky old lady Named Cocaine Katy Who embroiders all my jeans. Got my poor old grey-haried daddy Drivin' my limousine. It's all designed to blow our minds, But our minds won't really get blown Like the blow that'll getcha When you get your picture On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
We gotta lotta little teenage bue-eyed groupies Who do anything we say. We got a genuine Indian guru Who's teaching us a better way. We got all the friends that money can buy, So we never have to be alone. And we keep getting richer, But we can't get our picture On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Perhaps this falls under the Me Too domain, but I just wanted to say that I really enjoy these Taco vs Katz movie reviews. The only real problem is that Taco and Katz have similar tastes, so we really don't get the S&E type of dynamicisim.
I don't completely agree with your comments. The Existentialists were philosophers and it is silly to say that there were no philosophers before the industrial revolution. The men mentioned above were also authors and playwrights, which existed long before Modern society as well. Camus, for one, wrote his greatest work, "The Myth of Sisyphus", during WWII while he was working for the French Underground.
He was not a "Modernist" man with a lot of leisure time and wealth. Along with that, I feel that your arguments seem to follow post hoc ergo Procter hoc lines of thought. The alienation that Camus felt was the alienation that humans feel because reality is set up in diametric opposition to what we want. We want to live but we all have to die. This is Camus alienation, his "Absurd". His Absurd is as old as man is and if the history of philosophy were different, it could well have been espoused in the Middle Ages.
In the end, what I am trying to say is that geek alienation with society has absolutely nothing to do with the alienation felt by Existential philosophers. Alienation from society is fundamentally different from alienation with the way reality is set up. In that distinction lies your error.
Slashdot Mirror
Only when we realize that every little scrap of something that people put there heart and love into is art, will anything change in this world. Maybe this wasn't great art, (there were some interesting camera shots), but you need a serious attitude adjustment to say that this wasn't even artistic. I know only this one thing. Until we understand and believe that every little thing that people create with their emotions, time, passion and love is art and respected for the effort the artist made, and until we all wake up and realize that the only thing worth doing is art, will we never be free of all of our hate, prejudice, intolerance, wars, poverty, and destruction.
May you find the way.
Jt
- Higher Cannabinoid yields are better for the user. THC
is a medically safe compound with no longterm effects. That is why we have Marinol, because THC is safe. Smoking it, on the other hand, isn't so good for you. So a higher potency means less smoke for the same lvl of high. You seem to cast it in a bad light, it isn't in any logical sense.
- The potency of THC in a Cannabis plant varries on several conditions. Freshness, plant genes, growth practices all effect how much THC are in the plant. This was just as true in the 60's as it is now. High yielding plants were available in the 60's just as now. 30 years of breeding cannot alter a plant that much. Low THC yield plants still abound.
- If you spent the time to write your reply, consider spending that time reading up on the subject you are replying to. Reference links,
such as one on the actual potency of Cannabis,
would go a long way in helping your argument out.
---crulx
The inability to use a particular piece of software for whatever purpose you can think up for it makes it non-free.
This is an step in the absolute wrong direction.
---
crulx
One of two things will happen.
1) Content consumers will rise up and assert their rights to get, use, and disseminate knowledge in a responsible manner. Publishing companies will profit by the great increase in appetite for knowledge.
2) Content controllers will keep the consumers locked into proprietary and exclusive contracts and technologies. Consumers will be heavily burdened with worring about if they have made a "mistake" in desimating and using knowledge that they gained in this "contract". Producers will make the same amount of money. A given since they set up the rules to mirror the current environment.
It is my greatest hope that content producers wake up and see that there is far more money to be made in a open environment than a closed one. I also hope that basic economics come into play and the "open" content providers are far more profitable than their closed counterpart, and thus making "open" content not only a ethical choice, but a sensible economic one as well.
Time will tell.
As open content providers ourselves, we just need to continue to prostylitze (bad sp) the advantages of open content, use open content, and protest content from producers that "lock in" the consumer. But it is hard, given that closed content providers produce a lot of "interesting" content. Content that can entertain (think DVD) and inform, (in the case of books with insane publishers like most large American publishers)
I continue to believe that people will do the right thing, and economic arguments are on the side of the "right thing". Hopefully it is only necessary to be vigilant.
If not, it will be necessary to protest these "closed" producers and the legal institutions that make this possible.
As for what will happen, we shall see. We shall see....
So given the deviations of the pyramids directions, she has come up with a theory that fits all the data. As it seems to be the best theory for accounting how the pyramids where aligned, It will remain so either forever if it is true, or until a theory that better describes the actual methond is proven to fit the data.
---
crulx
but this is ridiculous. First, it was letting AOLers on to Usenet. Then it was the plethora of ISP's and all the newbie net users. Remember the CDA? Submarine net patents? DMCA? I feel like I've had a run in with one million Michele Triola's, and I'm no Lee Marvin.
I'm going to propose something radical, something elitist, something morally wrong, something curmudgeonly. But I remember the "Good Old Days". Well, they are not that old. And at 9600 baud, "Good" is a relative term. But I'll loose the bandwidth. I'll lose the web. I'll lose everything except mail, usenet, telnet, ftp, and a small smattering of other services. But I want them gone. The users. Almost all of them. Everyone who first got online after 92, maybe up to 94.
Maybe this is flamebait. Maybe this is a troll. I don't know. I don't care. I'm seeing red. Nothing but crimson red. We had everything we needed back then. Gopher, usenet, mail, and muds. It was the holy quartet. Everyone new something about computers. You couldn't get online if you didn't. Remember typing in slip manually? How about hand timing a script to pick up as soon as PPP connected? Everybody had to do this. Sure, we couldn't email our mom's then. But I'll give that back too. To be on the net was something that only you understood. Your family didn't know or care. Hell, they couldn't think of a reason they would use it. They were right.
Now I know what you are thinking. The net is too powerful to keep away from everyone. Its draw is irresistible. Like moths to a flame, people are drawn to information. Like Stella Liebeck to her coffee cup, the masses came to the net. And both were pissed when it was hot. Sometimes, it is better to never serve coffee in the first place. We thought community, they thought lawsuits. We though information, they thought "of the children". We though porn... Well, they thought the same thing. They cannot always be wrong, you know.
And speaking of the children, how come I don't hear about parents complaining about all of those 8 year old drivers out there. Oh, 8 year olds cannot drive? What does this logically imply Skippy? Really? If I truly feel that the net is as dangerous as a car, I shouldn't let my kids use it just like I don't let them drive a car? Nah, that is too much. I'll just demand for laws to protect them. Lord knows I'm not going to.
I'm not seriously proposing that we get rid of the "masses". I know it is impossible. But we should have kept it from them. Somehow. Maybe like a clue server on netrek. We could have kept all that knowledge and power to ourselves. The net would have been smaller, but we would have had so much more power because of it. Like gods among men, we could have levied our advantage to get sensible preemptive laws put into place. We knew they were coming. We should have prepared.
In short, we had it all, we gave it away. It doesn't suck yet, but it could. And we could have prevented it. Maybe we still can, but we definitely could have by acting earlier.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I believe that I speak for anyone who truly cares about freedom when I say,
Yes.
You see, if we all would freely give our lives for the cause of freedom and liberty, then none of us would have to. What I have to ask you is, what would have to happen to get you to preserve liberty and freedom with your life?
----
crulx@iaxs.net
---
I have a user id of 3223.
Everything I say should be modded up to a +5.
Actually, how will it flop? Do you seriously believe that this small service (probably part of someone's job in redhat already) will bankrupt Redhat? or that dedicating a small percentage of their bandwidth will cost them so much that they will have to shut down the service? The idea may not be wildly sucessful like they hope, but it will generate revenue at little expense to them.
If you think that the Linux Boat is about not paying for your OS, I suggest you look at the boat that you are on, because it is not the Linux boat.
---
Crulx
crulx@iaxs.net
---
I have a user id of 3223.
Everything I say should be modded up to a +5.
I would be willing to bet that the FBI was suppriesed by the outrage from Carnivore. They already did this sort of thing to all the phones in the US and nobody peeped. I feel that the only reason we are hearing about it is that they made a couple of mistakes that they did not make with CALEA.
So there you have it. It wasn't a small step towards a police state, It was a stumble on the rocks in their general stroll to it. They won't make the same mistake again.
----
crulx
crulx@iaxs.net
---
I have a user id of 3223.
Everything I say should be modded up to a +5.
Richard Stevens said: It's really easy to say that when you've got a full belly and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future, isn't it?
There is this thing in logic called an Ad Hominem fallacy. You just used it. You didn't mention anything about why you thought that the author's premise that Westerns feel that freedom is taken for granted by most Westerner's, including yourself. Instead, you claimed that it was easy to say this because of certain conditions about booker's life. I imagine you wanted to tie that into your earlier point about stability, but instead you went arwy and made a logical fault. Please try to avoid these sorts of errors, or people will start to think you are a troll as that tatic is often used by them. If people think you are a troll, they will stop listening to you (that is the internet standard way of dealing with them). If your point is to communicate on /. , then this will be counter to your goals and thus unbenificial to you.
And who are you to judge the importance of the stability of the state? What if the state is engaged in wrongdoing? Should we preserve stability at all costs? Seems like a strange end to strive for... Sigh. You really have no concept of the real world, do you? The state had better be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing before you start acting up, because chances are you'd make matters much worse in the process of trying to "improve" things.
Again, an Ad Hominem. What does his haveing "no concept of the real world" have to do with his feelign that freedom is more important than stability? I can think of a few reasons, but you make no clear arguments. Do you mean to tie it in with your next point about the state needing to "be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing ..."? Is that what you claim "real world" knowledge to be? I'm sure you can see that many people would disagree. If you want to make any points, you need to elaborate.
And look at your logic in the second line. If you start "acting up" before the state is "engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing..." then you will end up making "matters much worse".
This seems to be the fundimental premise of your argument. Thus the rest of your argument suffers from a falicy know as petitio principii, Begging the question. Your argument looks like this..
1) The government is not "engaged in a damn good deal of wrondoing. (supposedly proved by the fact that things are stable and not every person in the nation is complaining)
2) If you act up and the government is not doing wrong then you will make matters much "worse in the process of trying to "improve" things. "
3) You do not want to make matters worse (definition of worse for most rational people)
Therefore, do not act up. (I think that conclusion can safely be implied by your comments. Especially comments below about people who have the power to make life miserable for everyone)
You have not shown 1 to be the case. Nor have you explained why 2 is correct. So your conclusion has not been shown. Please explain the following.
- Why is invasion of not a "damn good deal of wrongdoing"?
- What is a good deal of wrongdoing?
- What is the definition of "acting up"?
- Why is premise 2 correct? Why is acting up only good for for large amounts of wrongness and not small amounts.
You need to prove your premises.Often, though, "stability" is a placated populace, happily listening to Britney Spears and munching on Cheetos, and threats to that notion of "stability" are dealt with severely. That sort of stability generates the big bucks.
That's all what you've chosen to do with the fact that you're rich and content enough to not have to worry about whether rebel (or government) militia leaders are going to come to your house and steal all your food (at best).
This is a non sequitur. How does this follow from his statements above?
People in the Western world (especially the US) are generally well-off enough that freedom can coexist with stability. They don't want to lose what they have. However, when you start getting desperate elements in the population (who have the power to make life miserable for everyone), the story changes.
Both you and the poster make several arguments with the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Just because most people are complacent with stability, does not justify your arugment that stability is more important than "not acting up". booker makes some of the same arugments.
Please, if you want to prove your point, choose a logical standpoint to go from. Your arguments will sound more professional and will less likely get you labled as a troll. (And there is somethign I hope we can both agree upon.) ---
crulx
crulx@iaxs.net
It's been noted before in this thread, but add Martin Luther King jr. to your thinking, and it would indicate you're wrong. The same would probably go for Nelson Mandela, Steven Biko and Mahatma Gandhi.
These people were simply figureheads for movements that represented changes caused by external pressures. (Colonialism falling out of favor, external economic pressures, international ostracism, desire not to be compared to Nazi Germany, etc.) They had no real power.
You dramaticaly understate the complexity of "real power". Power, simply defined, is the ability to get your way. These people believed in something that did not exist in their world. The made changes and comitments in their lives that very much affected the real world. Gandhi exerted enormous power. Enough to change the government of an entire nation. That other people believed in him and his goals (and thus exerted the "external pressure") is a fact of human nature. Power is amplified by others following you, true. But to say Ghandi only wielded "fake power" and yet let a movement to free a nation means that we would have to throw out every rational definition of power. Would colonialism have been abandoned eventually? Yes, but on a much different timescale than Ghandi wanted and achieved.
Do this for me, go on a hunger strike for a cause you believe and see who listens to you. Ghandi could stop eating and national borders would change. You tell me who has real power.
Also remember that when a 'civilized' country like GB can do it, it makes it so much easier for dictatorships to do the same.
The dictatorships would be doing it anyway.
I will agree with your point here. Dictators do do this. Making it "easier for them to do it" is not an argument for or against these sorts of behaviors.
But if these behaviors are wrong, then it does not matter who does them. They are wrong nevertheless. I'm responding to another one of your posts on that issue.
--- Crulx crulx@iaxs.net
He tells me that he never went to college, but his daddy got him this job. I chew now. He drinks some milk. He has a milk moustache. He tells me he has written about two articles. The rest of the time he is a janitor. He chews again. He puts some jelly on the toast. He takes another bite. I chew. He chews.
I ask him how long he has been working at the Gazette. He replies, "Three years." Other journalists that have interviewed him say that he chews with his mouth open. He informs me that he interviewed some guy who ate a bunch of sugar and did something about online books. He recounts a story of how much garlic this person eats. He takes a bite of toast. He chews. I chew.
I ask him if he chews with his mouth open. He says no. I know better, I have ate with him.
THE END.
Metro Population 216,478,090
Non Metro Population 53,820,434
So there is only a market of 53 million people for the papers that you are talking about. Katz is completely correct in assuming that most of the papers are delivered to metro areas and read by metro citizens. It is nearly inarguable that local papers will not die in the next 20 years. But what about the larger, more "wired" metro populations? Do they seriously have a need for paper based news? It is a very interesting question.
I personally find myself much better informed by not reading the paper and using that time to read news websites. That, coupled with the complete misrepresentation by the media on technology issues, makes paper based news just hard to handle. However, the local collage news paper (U of MN Daily) is filled with interesting local news and events that I care about. But I only read that because it is free. *grin*
In short, I think that papers will definately live on in the local scene. Most likely, they will be religated there as more and more people get online and have less and less need for world news. Perhaps there will be a second wind in subscribership when they only report local issues and news. I myself would sign up for such a paper. In the end, time will tell.
Crulx
Well, it really really depends on what you're doing on the net. There are apparently people happy with WebTV.
But no one would argue that they are using the internet to its fullest communication ability. From what I have seen, when people go to buy a computer, they want it to be fully utilized. People with WebTv are skimming the surface, and unless they believe Microsoft's hype about WebTv, they know it. (The argument that most believe the hype is for another time)
Um well yes they do actually, if you buy NT Server...And if you're using FrontPage ...
My point was that a webserver (hell, and browser for that matter, despite the DOJ trial) is part of the essential ocmputer componants that you should receive when you get an OS. Yes, there are tons of pay and free webservers for Windows. None of them come with the generic OS. And most people don't understand that they can get and install them. If it came default and already preinstalled, like RedHat, they have a much larger chance of using it. And this use would increase the user's connectivity and ability to disseminate information. If the feature's author states this as the highest goal, then the OS matters.
me> Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box?
Uh yes, actually it works just fine for my needs, thank you.
Dude, the program sucks. It emulates vt100. No color. Its configuration is simple, but incomplete. It has serious problems if it cannot resolve a domain name (It can hang). (Haven't checked the win98 version, but that was true in the older ones) But I understand this can be a personal preference, so I'll drop the point.
Who's denying anyone?
Denying was a bad choice of words. I should have said, not making easily accessible. It amounts to the same thing when you are looking for a low learning curve. If all this technology is supposed to make everyone communicate easier, then it should be defaulted to do just that. Not require someone to download a webserver and set everything up themselves.
As for wanting to turn their computer off, with the advent of DSL and other "always on" internet technologies, the startup and shutdown process is going to become less and less frequent with home users. I think we are seeing trends in this direction. I'd like more numbers on this though.
As far as box crackers goes, you are right in some respects. People will not want to deal with the hazards. Distro's should come with a completely empty cgi-bin directory. Most webservers that server only static content are pretty "hardened". And if more and more people leave their computers always on, extremely unsecure OS's like Windows are going to be taking more hits from trojan's than crackers anyway.
My point is that if expressive power is what is going to fuel internet growth and use, and is its main benefit to society, then the OS you choose does make a difference in that it defines what you think your computer can easily do as opposed to going out and doing work and learning about things that may not interest you for youself.
And who knows, people are pretty interested in what is lying around on their computer. If your Mom may become interested in the source of her webserver if it was just sitting there. Stranger things have happend. *grin*
Crulx
- The os and assorted programs define what you are able to do with your computer out of the box. People keep saying that if internet users really wanted a X feature out of the box, the market presures would make it happen. Quite frankly, this is just not true. Due to the Microsoft hegemony, people have a skewed vision of what their OS can do. Many people want their own website but feel it is too hard to get server space without the anoying popups and banner adds. If they kewn and felt that a webserver should come with the OS, would a company like Microsoft give their webserver away? Web serving is a fundimental communication principle that the net uses, but is mostly unavailble on the largest user OS and definately not, in the box.
- Users have a skewed view of what services that they can use out of the box. Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box? Compare that to a Unix telnet. How about IRC? These are fundimental communication technolgies that the 'enlighteners/internalizers' cannot use out of the box because of their OS. If communication is the key to the net (which I feel it is) then how could their OS not matter?
- To return to the subject of services, can anyone imagine their Unix box without telnetd? How about ftpd? Sendmail (or related mail tech)? People cannot utilize their machine to its fullest sense because their OS does not allow that use. Ask yourself, if those services came default in Windows historically and the next release they were taken away, would people not care? They would be furious because their ability to communicate.
- If these people are flocking to AOL and MS because of its ease of use, does that mean they should be denied basic computational and communicative power because they chose a path with a low learning curve? Currently, these people's expressive ablity is limited because they have to go out and typically purchase hundreds of dollars of extra software to get these services. They are seen as extras when really they are almost fundimental rights. Their OS has limited them.
If the people who are flocking to the internet are really going to spend time creating ideas, they need to be able to communicate them. You mention several technologies that have tremendously enhanced people's expressive power. Now, because of the tool that they choose to use, that power is limited. So honestly, I do feel that the OS matters. And not just a little bit, but a LOT. Until people use an OS that provides programs that fully utilize internet services and give easy access to contenet serving, they will be intellectually hampered and unable to realize the full communacative potential that we both feel that they have.Crulx
About that "human experience" thing, I just wrote a few paragraphs and it is way off topic. We'll save it for another time. Sufficed to say, that while relevant is relevant, I'm feel that everything is equally relevant. (which of course destroys the concept, I realize)
As for a general editorial decline in /. , that may or may not be. But Rob posted this thread. As he has posted personal events in his and Jeff and the rest of the gang's life time and time again. And while there is nothing wrong with putting it on his homepage, there is nothing wrong with putting it up here either. You feel differently, which is fine. I can see your point. But my point is it is exactly having the /. crew posting what interests them on home site, including personal stories, that caused the success of /.
As for the nation turning to Walter C for news, it was exactly this sort of television reporting style that persuaded the entire world that you could learn everything about a particular event in under 10 min. The fact is, you learn less about something because you saw it on TV news.(I.e. you think you understand it so you rarely go learn more about it. I could spend hours discussing why.)
Maybe the /. gang needs to create a "personal story" icon and allow people not to read it. But I'm positive those who do not will loose something very wonderful about /.
Crulx crulx@iaxs.net
Let me make a few points.
- The web is about communication. Pure and simple. It really doesn't do anything else except transmit knowledge from one place to another. CmdrTaco wished to communicate something about his life. This is no less, and no more, relevant than the DeCSS injunction posts because they both deal with the human experience.
- No one will argue that Hemos and CmdrTaco and the rest of the
/. gang have given vast chunks of their life up to this website. In their little remaining time they do non /. things. They have in the past, and will continue to in the future hopefully, posted several of the (remaining after /. work ) personal events in their lives. This fosters a sense of community and gives greater value to all the posts because it gives you a connection to the crew that makes this possible. Again, they are communicating the human experience through mostly news, but other tidbits as well. - If you come to
/. for a good spot to stay current in technology, great. But ask yourself, why not the hundreds of other weblogs that do the same thing? Why not the major news outlets? It is probably the /. community itself. The monster of this site's editors sick and twisted minds. *grin* This community was created because we knew we could get the technical information we want and need, but without the dissatisfying taste that we get when we go to other, blander, less human web sites.
SoI'll conclude with this exercise
What is the CNN tech new editor's favorite technology?
What is Hemos' favorite technology?
The proof is in the pudding.
Crulx
crulx@iaxs.net
http://decssmirror.homestead.com/
Yes all of these mirror postings are redundant. That is why they are important.
Crulx
consists of two functionally independent, hierarchical stages: An early, pre-attentive stage that operates without capacity limitation and in parallel across the entire visual field, followed by a later, attentive limited-capacity stage that can deal with only one item (or at best a few items) at a time. When items pass from the first to the second stage of processing, these items are considered to be selected. (Theeuwes 1993, p. 97f, original italics)
Now wether or not this researcher is refering to the first or second stage is not clear from the article. As the reasearch had the subjects looking for a red or green block with a nick in it, I assume he is not making a claim about the first stage. This stage has always been considered parallel and he would have to prove it is not with a single feature task, not a multiple one like he used. However, from the tone of the article and the quote, it seem that he IS making this claim.
If the author is making the claim that single feature detection is serial, I feel that his experiment will be soundly ripped apart by most Psychological researchers as we have a large convincing body of evidence that this stage is parallel. If he is not making this claim, then he really wasn't adding anything new to the scientific body because we already KNEW that the second stage was serial.
Click here for more info JT
I couldn't agree more with Katz. The media has constantly and nearly unanimously failed to understand even the most basic points of the New World Connectivity. I wonder if it is possible for them to understand that it is about connection with other human beings and connection to a large source of information. They only point they do seem to get is that global networking has a "newness" for most users. (Although not to many that read /.) Then applying a Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc style of argument, everything else that is new and breaks the mold ends up being due directly to the "internet". The mainstream media, and most of the mainstream for that matter, honestly believe that the "net" is the cause of anything new that they come across. Highschool shootings, the most recent Eastern Europe crisis, even terrorism under the guise of "cyber terrorism" (WTF?) are only a few examples of things, if not expressly caused by the arrival of massive internetworking, at the very least have a high correlation which amounts to a causal relationship to most journalists. And if this is not alone enough to send chills down your spine, the very same journalists refuse to do the most basic research into their topic they are reporting on that would give them the necessary information to not make the same mistakes. (Take the "hacker"/"cracker" misuse as an example.) In conclusion, we NEED to find more and better ways of making sure that reporting is done with the understanding of the technologies (at least on a human level) involved in their stories because these journalists report/reflect on the minds of the "masses" and thus ultimately the politician. The rest of that argument is left to the reader.
Oh, we're big rock singers.
We got golden fingers.
And we're loved everywhere we go.
We sing about beauty,
And we sing about truth
At ten thousand dollars a show.
We take all kinds of pills
To give us all kind of thrills,
But the thrill we've never known
Is the thrill that'll getcha
When you get your picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Rolling Stone...
Wanna see my picture on the cover.
Stone...
Wanna buy five copies for my Mother.
Stone...
Wanna see my smiling face
On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
I got a freaky old lady
Named Cocaine Katy
Who embroiders all my jeans.
Got my poor old grey-haried daddy
Drivin' my limousine.
It's all designed to blow our minds,
But our minds won't really get blown
Like the blow that'll getcha
When you get your picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
We gotta lotta little teenage bue-eyed groupies
Who do anything we say.
We got a genuine Indian guru
Who's teaching us a better way.
We got all the friends that money can buy,
So we never have to be alone.
And we keep getting richer,
But we can't get our picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Perhaps this falls under the Me Too domain, but I just wanted to say that I really enjoy these Taco vs Katz movie reviews. The only real problem is that Taco and Katz have similar tastes, so we really don't get the S&E type of dynamicisim.
I don't completely agree with your comments. The Existentialists were philosophers and it is silly to say that there were no philosophers before the industrial revolution. The men mentioned above were also authors and playwrights, which existed long before Modern society as well. Camus, for one, wrote his greatest work, "The Myth of Sisyphus", during WWII while he was working for the French Underground.
He was not a "Modernist" man with a lot of leisure time and wealth. Along with that, I feel that your arguments seem to follow post hoc ergo Procter hoc lines of thought. The alienation that Camus felt was the alienation that humans feel because reality is set up in diametric opposition to what we want. We want to live but we all have to die. This is Camus alienation, his "Absurd". His Absurd is as old as man is and if the history of philosophy were different, it could well have been espoused in the Middle Ages.
In the end, what I am trying to say is that geek alienation with society has absolutely nothing to do with the alienation felt by Existential philosophers. Alienation from society is fundamentally different from alienation with the way reality is set up. In that distinction lies your error.
http://www.nts.umn.edu/homer/internet2/
For all of you who are interested.