I was hoping that there was something inherently funny about asking if pictures of bestial homosexual necrophilia were safe for work, but I guess no one got the joke.
Wait. You want us to wait 30 years for the economy to shake itself back together after reopening the doors to 10c/hour wages when we have people today who can't get by with multiple jobs at $6-7/hour? I mean, we can't even wait 2-3 years before people start despairing like this. You advocate both dropping the bottom out on the working poor while cutting all the funding that pays for our welfare programs, our health and social security programs, as well as all the other important law and safety enforcement programs in the federal government. This will drive straight into the streets all the people who work as janitors, stock boys, fruit pickers, and in other essential yet invisible roles that form the underlying machinery of the economy.
You're advocating pure financial and social chaos! Are you sure you're not a Marxist? After all, this is the ideal recipe for a revolution of the Proletariat.
"Left-wing freak Lieberman?" Joe Lieberman's the closest thing the Dems have to a neo-con in the party. Civil libertarians and people who seek peace and international consensus should NOT consider Lieberman a "left wing freak."
He's the Democratic candidate most likely to use rhetoric about "God" and "evil" like Bush, and he supports numerous issues that blur the line between Church and State such as funding faith-based aid programs and "morality legislation" such as the ban of the sale of violent video games to minors. He supported the Patriot Act, he supports "properly constructed" military tribunals, and he supported the act which pratically rubber-stamped anti-Arab racial profiling in the granting of visas. He has also been a long-time supporter of warantless wire-taps and is responsible for the amendment to anti-terrorism language in the wake of OKC that allows for "roving" wiretaps.
He's the candidate most likely to support America's unilateral use of military power. He co-sponsored the bill that authorized the attack on Iraq. He's also a fanatical supporter of Israel, and goes proudly on the record as supporting issues which anger Muslims world-wide. He opposed cutting the flow of free US taxpayer money to Israel over their new Berlin Wall. He adamantly refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians' chosen leadership, which even Bush will deal with despite the overwhelmingly pro-Israel bias in his neo-con think-tank.
He also supports school vouchers as well as strengthened intellectual property and free trade agreements. How, he's pretty fiscally and environmentally liberal, but Lieberman is far to the right of Dean. Hell, Dean's only notable conservative views are the two points you mentioned and a less radical stance stance on socialized medicine. I call myself a hard-core liberal, and I pretty much agree with him on all of those issues as well. (While I'm at it, I don't consider having balanced fiscal sense to be a right/left issue considering Bush's huge increase in discretionary spending over the Clinton era coupled with reckless tax cuts).
I'd love to see Dean get the nomination. It'll give people an actual reason to vote one way or another. If Lieberman gets the nod, it'll be Bush Jr. vs. Bush Lite, and I'll be looking pretty hard at 3rd party candidates.
C'mon this is at least as good as Decaffinated Jedi's "+5, Funny" post, and it matches the original tune better. (The server is really dead too as of this posting.)
Re:People who don't know the inside mod the outsid
on
The "Spider Case"
·
· Score: 1
People who have never modded "the outside" extensively don't really know how much trouble there is in getting the inside to work too. There's no Big Daddy Dell to hold your little hand through getting the hardware stuffed inside with proper power and cooling.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't even teach, criticize.
Then why is it taxed as such?. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?
That's a non-sequitur. The link has nothing to do with your phone number being treated as your private property, and the "free" in "free speech" has nothing to do with paying to use the medium in which it is expressed.
Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear.
Actually, no. The US Supreme Court does not in general support your "right" to shut out the speech of others unless they are on or using your private property or unless they are threatening you. They cannot force you to listen, but usually with the exception of commercial entities (like telemarketers) and people who present a risk to you (stalkers), you cannot force them not to try to talk to you. It would be really nice if you were right in my opinion, but case law on the books suggests that suppressing political cold-calls and charity fundraising would most likely be overturned.
A quick Google search turns up the history. To summarize, it's a matter of whether or not commercial interests have the same rights as citizens. The Nike case that the Supreme Court recently dimissed highlighted very passionate arguments from bothsides of the issue of Corporate Personhood.
The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that several forms of speech are not protected. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected. Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected. Speech that somehow violates your property rights, such as political or religious campaigning on your doorstep or in your house is not protected. For many years, neither was commercial speech in many ways, and discrimination of content based on the fact that it is commercial in nature has been allowed. This is the discrimination that the telemarketers seek to attack.
You can't really do that. Much of the justification for the DNC list is that commercial speech is treated differently from political and other speech in case law. Non-profits are not participating in commercial speech usually, and political cold-calling is purely political speech, which has the highest standards against restricting. Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain, many of the usual rulings that allow for the restriction of even political speech on your own property also don't apply.
NASA [...] can't even afford to replace the bearings on the ancient platforms that carry the Space Shuttles to the launch pad.
Actually, they repaired and replaced the bad bearings in the JEL (jacking, equalization, and leveling) cylinders before they allowed Atlantis to launch within a month of discovering the problem during an effort to refurbish and maintain systems which hadn't been taken apart since the construction of the machines in 1966. That's pretty good considering that they only had 9 spares for 34 worn and broken bearings. They fixed it back in September of 2002 after discovering it in August of 2002.
What America needs is an armed moral authority dedicated to the ideals of the Republic -- sort of like the IRA, only with better bombs.
I think we tried that a few years ago. I think it somehow managed to have even less public support than your IRA did. Maybe a suggestion that doesn't involve domestic terrorism might be a good one.
You are wrong in saying that frames are repeated 3 times on the film itself. Trust me, there's only 24 fps on the actual 35mm film stock -- I used to have to splice the stuff together as a projectionist. However, most modern projectors have a shutter that flickers 2 or 3 times per frame to give the illusion that you correctly describe. This was, of course, the most economical solution to the problem.
-Water the office plants with rubbing alcohol -break all the pencils in the office
Those two are just crossing the line from harmless prank to vandalism. A good prank never does any permanent damage. People take the destruction of property way too seriously. Rule of thumb -- if it costs anyone but you money or serious time to undo, then it isn't funny.
I've been told that goatse.cx now includes a loud sound-clip that proudly proclaims, "I'm looking at gay porn!" I haven't verified this rumor, and I'm not asking you to either, but (damn!) I hope it's true. That rumor has made me EXTRA wary about links in Slashdot posts.
You didn't happen to go to school at Georgia Tech, did you? As far as I know, this little overdone meme originated on one of the newsgroups there as a prank on freshmen, but I'd love to know if it spread to or came from elsewhere.
I loved those things when I was there. It was another example of Japan's great will to use engineering to overcome the problems of their population density and the ludicrous price of real-estate there. I always wondered how they'd fare in America.
Doesn't matter to me. I'm on my state's local anti-telemarketing list as well, and unless this goes to the federal level and is ruled against in some odd fashion that prohibits state-level DNC lists, then Oklahoma can go screw themselves.
Re:American Gods "book of the century"????
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
James Joyce isn't the "James Joyce" of the twentieth century.
The problem with modern art is that the uniqueness of artistic talent is dead. The great works of the past that we all recognize are valued because the talent required to make them was rare back in the day. Now, however, you can find a plethora people in the world with talent exceeding Van Gogh, Michaelangelo, and Da Vinci. Our liberal arts schools crank out people with this level or talent by the hundreds each year, and most of them are "doomed" to spend their lives creating office art and advertising source material.
High Art needs to be rare and unique to retain its value, and following the overabundance of talent and the disillusioned post-war post-modernism movements, we have been led to a state where Novelty is King. You can peg the art movements of the early 20th century as the real beginnings of Visceral Response and Novelty as the driving forces of the art world as it broke from the life-like imagery that had prevailed since the Renaissance. Fauvism, Expressionism, Surrealism, Cubism, and Abstraction slowly pulled artwork away from the technical yet evocative realism of the previous centuries and firmly into the realm of what we now refer to as "shock-value art." Artists like Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrain, and Ben Nicholson utterly rejected depictions of real-world objects and events. Later postmodern and self-impressed "ironic" works by artists like Andy Warhol coupled with the spread of high quality commercial art in advertising over the early half of the 20th century sounded the death-knell for the prevalence of actual talent in Art.
Now we have "kinetic scuptures" made up of seemingly randomly slapped-together piles of geometric figures desperately trying to pretend that the say something that wasn't said before by a hundred other "artists" in the first half of the century, icons of religious figures covered in human waste purely to piss-off people that the artist doesn't like and to give the artist a smug high-ground to pooh-pooh about censorship when the masses call troll on them, and empty fucking rooms strewn with litter and a fritzy light winning their "creator" hundreds of thousands of dollars in prizes. Art is Dead because Art is in the hands of the Masses, and the little egotistic society of intellectual masturbation that makes up the patrons of the High Art world just can't have that, now can it?
Postmodernism is all about asking the question, "What is Art?" This is an important question, but postmodernism's attempts at answering it lead one to the conclusion that everything is art and thus nothing is art. Musical pieces like 4'33" by John Cage (which is nothing but him sitting at a piano not playing anything for that long) and modern unstructured rhythmless Noise like that of Merzbow essentially claim that tone, rhythm, and melody are completly unnecessary for music. All long as an emotional landscape is painted somehow, then it is music. At the same time, is makes the argument that nothing is music.
Similarly, in my mind the modern art movement is too impressed with itself. Every modern artist who generates a huge media flak always claims to be "pushing the envelope of what Art is." What a load of hooey. In the process of asking this question, they too are rhetorically hinting that anything is so long as it gets a rise. Does that mean that KKK rallies should be given grants for performance art if soaking Jesus in horse urine is art?
Modern art exists today much like the art of the past did, to provide the rich and powerful with something to show off to their peers. While the patronage system is dead, the wealthy let themselves be taken into the con and the spiel of the artist trying to hock their latest collage of rotten melon splatters and barbed wire. This sponsors the movement and gives them a chance to feel superior to their peers much like the Princes of Italian city-states in Da Vinci's time. Why buy something beautiful? The middle class can do that at any upscale mall store. You've got to get something unique.
Bah. I am ranting. I just think it's a shame that the only artists who receive large sums of money for their work now days are con artists. Talent is dead.
All addressed in "The Sandman Companion"
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Please read "The Sandman Companion," which covers this Frequently Asked Question very, very nicely. It's a wonderful book for anyone who loved the series, containing interviews with Neil Gaiman, the artists who drew the books, and several others along with very insightful essays on the meaning and symbolism behind many of the events in the series.
Have you ever heard of the indy-RPG Nobilis by Rebecca Sean Borgstrom? It's very heavily influenced by some of your works and in many ways seems to tap the same poetic themes of "Sandman," "American Gods," and "Harlequin Valentine." I'm curious to know what you think of it. What other works of fiction (conventional and otherwise) has your writing influenced?
Gun's are designed to kill. Computers are not designed for cracking/spaming/etc.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrgh! It's just an analogy! Let's mad-lib it so that everyone gets the point:
If I have a [potentially dangerous tool] and I [perform an action which makes it accessable to dangerous or annoying people] for the purposes of attracting [one subclass of dangerous or annoying people] and [another worse subclass of dangerous or annoying people] gains control of the [potentially dangerous tool] to do [the naughty thing for which we fear them], aren't I partially responsible for [the naughty thing for which we fear them] because I let them have it?
The point he's making is that if you expose (action) your machine (tool) for the purpose of letting it get owned by spammers (subclass) and it gets owned by script kiddies (worse subclass) doing DDoS attacks (naughty thing), aren't you partially responsible for the damage by willingly giving your machine (tool) to them?
It's not that hard! While you could make the argument that people who don't keep up with their patches are also slightly responsible, he's not! He's only making the point that if you deliberately let your machine get cracked, you are willingly contributing to the problem.
So, for those of us who are incredibly lazy, what do all those compiler options do? You gotten me curious now (but not curious enough to go through the trouble of setting up CVS myself).
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping that there was something inherently funny about asking if pictures of bestial homosexual necrophilia were safe for work, but I guess no one got the joke.
Are they work-safe?
Yes. Yes, I did parse the completely incorrectly, and I let myself get far too worked up about it. *sigh*
Just not overnight. Write back in thirty years.
Wait. You want us to wait 30 years for the economy to shake itself back together after reopening the doors to 10c/hour wages when we have people today who can't get by with multiple jobs at $6-7/hour? I mean, we can't even wait 2-3 years before people start despairing like this. You advocate both dropping the bottom out on the working poor while cutting all the funding that pays for our welfare programs, our health and social security programs, as well as all the other important law and safety enforcement programs in the federal government. This will drive straight into the streets all the people who work as janitors, stock boys, fruit pickers, and in other essential yet invisible roles that form the underlying machinery of the economy.
You're advocating pure financial and social chaos! Are you sure you're not a Marxist? After all, this is the ideal recipe for a revolution of the Proletariat.
"Left-wing freak Lieberman?" Joe Lieberman's the closest thing the Dems have to a neo-con in the party. Civil libertarians and people who seek peace and international consensus should NOT consider Lieberman a "left wing freak."
He's the Democratic candidate most likely to use rhetoric about "God" and "evil" like Bush, and he supports numerous issues that blur the line between Church and State such as funding faith-based aid programs and "morality legislation" such as the ban of the sale of violent video games to minors. He supported the Patriot Act, he supports "properly constructed" military tribunals, and he supported the act which pratically rubber-stamped anti-Arab racial profiling in the granting of visas. He has also been a long-time supporter of warantless wire-taps and is responsible for the amendment to anti-terrorism language in the wake of OKC that allows for "roving" wiretaps.
He's the candidate most likely to support America's unilateral use of military power. He co-sponsored the bill that authorized the attack on Iraq. He's also a fanatical supporter of Israel, and goes proudly on the record as supporting issues which anger Muslims world-wide. He opposed cutting the flow of free US taxpayer money to Israel over their new Berlin Wall. He adamantly refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians' chosen leadership, which even Bush will deal with despite the overwhelmingly pro-Israel bias in his neo-con think-tank.
He also supports school vouchers as well as strengthened intellectual property and free trade agreements. How, he's pretty fiscally and environmentally liberal, but Lieberman is far to the right of Dean. Hell, Dean's only notable conservative views are the two points you mentioned and a less radical stance stance on socialized medicine. I call myself a hard-core liberal, and I pretty much agree with him on all of those issues as well. (While I'm at it, I don't consider having balanced fiscal sense to be a right/left issue considering Bush's huge increase in discretionary spending over the Clinton era coupled with reckless tax cuts).
I'd love to see Dean get the nomination. It'll give people an actual reason to vote one way or another. If Lieberman gets the nod, it'll be Bush Jr. vs. Bush Lite, and I'll be looking pretty hard at 3rd party candidates.
C'mon this is at least as good as Decaffinated Jedi's "+5, Funny" post, and it matches the original tune better. (The server is really dead too as of this posting.)
People who have never modded "the outside" extensively don't really know how much trouble there is in getting the inside to work too. There's no Big Daddy Dell to hold your little hand through getting the hardware stuffed inside with proper power and cooling.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't even teach, criticize.
Then why is it taxed as such?. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?
That's a non-sequitur. The link has nothing to do with your phone number being treated as your private property, and the "free" in "free speech" has nothing to do with paying to use the medium in which it is expressed.
Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear.
Actually, no. The US Supreme Court does not in general support your "right" to shut out the speech of others unless they are on or using your private property or unless they are threatening you. They cannot force you to listen, but usually with the exception of commercial entities (like telemarketers) and people who present a risk to you (stalkers), you cannot force them not to try to talk to you. It would be really nice if you were right in my opinion, but case law on the books suggests that suppressing political cold-calls and charity fundraising would most likely be overturned.
A quick Google search turns up the history. To summarize, it's a matter of whether or not commercial interests have the same rights as citizens. The Nike case that the Supreme Court recently dimissed highlighted very passionate arguments from both sides of the issue of Corporate Personhood.
The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that several forms of speech are not protected. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected. Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected. Speech that somehow violates your property rights, such as political or religious campaigning on your doorstep or in your house is not protected. For many years, neither was commercial speech in many ways, and discrimination of content based on the fact that it is commercial in nature has been allowed. This is the discrimination that the telemarketers seek to attack.
You can't really do that. Much of the justification for the DNC list is that commercial speech is treated differently from political and other speech in case law. Non-profits are not participating in commercial speech usually, and political cold-calling is purely political speech, which has the highest standards against restricting. Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain, many of the usual rulings that allow for the restriction of even political speech on your own property also don't apply.
(IANAL.)
NASA [...] can't even afford to replace the bearings on the ancient platforms that carry the Space Shuttles to the launch pad.
Actually, they repaired and replaced the bad bearings in the JEL (jacking, equalization, and leveling) cylinders before they allowed Atlantis to launch within a month of discovering the problem during an effort to refurbish and maintain systems which hadn't been taken apart since the construction of the machines in 1966. That's pretty good considering that they only had 9 spares for 34 worn and broken bearings. They fixed it back in September of 2002 after discovering it in August of 2002.
What America needs is an armed moral authority dedicated to the ideals of the Republic -- sort of like the IRA, only with better bombs.
I think we tried that a few years ago. I think it somehow managed to have even less public support than your IRA did. Maybe a suggestion that doesn't involve domestic terrorism might be a good one.
You are wrong in saying that frames are repeated 3 times on the film itself. Trust me, there's only 24 fps on the actual 35mm film stock -- I used to have to splice the stuff together as a projectionist. However, most modern projectors have a shutter that flickers 2 or 3 times per frame to give the illusion that you correctly describe. This was, of course, the most economical solution to the problem.
-Water the office plants with rubbing alcohol
-break all the pencils in the office
Those two are just crossing the line from harmless prank to vandalism. A good prank never does any permanent damage. People take the destruction of property way too seriously. Rule of thumb -- if it costs anyone but you money or serious time to undo, then it isn't funny.
I've been told that goatse.cx now includes a loud sound-clip that proudly proclaims, "I'm looking at gay porn!" I haven't verified this rumor, and I'm not asking you to either, but (damn!) I hope it's true. That rumor has made me EXTRA wary about links in Slashdot posts.
Where is the config file for AutoCorrect? This seems like a fun prank to pull.
You didn't happen to go to school at Georgia Tech, did you? As far as I know, this little overdone meme originated on one of the newsgroups there as a prank on freshmen, but I'd love to know if it spread to or came from elsewhere.
I loved those things when I was there. It was another example of Japan's great will to use engineering to overcome the problems of their population density and the ludicrous price of real-estate there. I always wondered how they'd fare in America.
Doesn't matter to me. I'm on my state's local anti-telemarketing list as well, and unless this goes to the federal level and is ruled against in some odd fashion that prohibits state-level DNC lists, then Oklahoma can go screw themselves.
James Joyce isn't the "James Joyce" of the twentieth century.
The problem with modern art is that the uniqueness of artistic talent is dead. The great works of the past that we all recognize are valued because the talent required to make them was rare back in the day. Now, however, you can find a plethora people in the world with talent exceeding Van Gogh, Michaelangelo, and Da Vinci. Our liberal arts schools crank out people with this level or talent by the hundreds each year, and most of them are "doomed" to spend their lives creating office art and advertising source material.
High Art needs to be rare and unique to retain its value, and following the overabundance of talent and the disillusioned post-war post-modernism movements, we have been led to a state where Novelty is King. You can peg the art movements of the early 20th century as the real beginnings of Visceral Response and Novelty as the driving forces of the art world as it broke from the life-like imagery that had prevailed since the Renaissance. Fauvism, Expressionism, Surrealism, Cubism, and Abstraction slowly pulled artwork away from the technical yet evocative realism of the previous centuries and firmly into the realm of what we now refer to as "shock-value art." Artists like Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrain, and Ben Nicholson utterly rejected depictions of real-world objects and events. Later postmodern and self-impressed "ironic" works by artists like Andy Warhol coupled with the spread of high quality commercial art in advertising over the early half of the 20th century sounded the death-knell for the prevalence of actual talent in Art.
Now we have "kinetic scuptures" made up of seemingly randomly slapped-together piles of geometric figures desperately trying to pretend that the say something that wasn't said before by a hundred other "artists" in the first half of the century, icons of religious figures covered in human waste purely to piss-off people that the artist doesn't like and to give the artist a smug high-ground to pooh-pooh about censorship when the masses call troll on them, and empty fucking rooms strewn with litter and a fritzy light winning their "creator" hundreds of thousands of dollars in prizes. Art is Dead because Art is in the hands of the Masses, and the little egotistic society of intellectual masturbation that makes up the patrons of the High Art world just can't have that, now can it?
Postmodernism is all about asking the question, "What is Art?" This is an important question, but postmodernism's attempts at answering it lead one to the conclusion that everything is art and thus nothing is art. Musical pieces like 4'33" by John Cage (which is nothing but him sitting at a piano not playing anything for that long) and modern unstructured rhythmless Noise like that of Merzbow essentially claim that tone, rhythm, and melody are completly unnecessary for music. All long as an emotional landscape is painted somehow, then it is music. At the same time, is makes the argument that nothing is music.
Similarly, in my mind the modern art movement is too impressed with itself. Every modern artist who generates a huge media flak always claims to be "pushing the envelope of what Art is." What a load of hooey. In the process of asking this question, they too are rhetorically hinting that anything is so long as it gets a rise. Does that mean that KKK rallies should be given grants for performance art if soaking Jesus in horse urine is art?
Modern art exists today much like the art of the past did, to provide the rich and powerful with something to show off to their peers. While the patronage system is dead, the wealthy let themselves be taken into the con and the spiel of the artist trying to hock their latest collage of rotten melon splatters and barbed wire. This sponsors the movement and gives them a chance to feel superior to their peers much like the Princes of Italian city-states in Da Vinci's time. Why buy something beautiful? The middle class can do that at any upscale mall store. You've got to get something unique.
Bah. I am ranting. I just think it's a shame that the only artists who receive large sums of money for their work now days are con artists. Talent is dead.
Please read "The Sandman Companion," which covers this Frequently Asked Question very, very nicely. It's a wonderful book for anyone who loved the series, containing interviews with Neil Gaiman, the artists who drew the books, and several others along with very insightful essays on the meaning and symbolism behind many of the events in the series.
Have you ever heard of the indy-RPG Nobilis by Rebecca Sean Borgstrom? It's very heavily influenced by some of your works and in many ways seems to tap the same poetic themes of "Sandman," "American Gods," and "Harlequin Valentine." I'm curious to know what you think of it. What other works of fiction (conventional and otherwise) has your writing influenced?
Gun's are designed to kill. Computers are not designed for cracking/spaming/etc.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrgh! It's just an analogy! Let's mad-lib it so that everyone gets the point:
If I have a [potentially dangerous tool] and I [perform an action which makes it accessable to dangerous or annoying people] for the purposes of attracting [one subclass of dangerous or annoying people] and [another worse subclass of dangerous or annoying people] gains control of the [potentially dangerous tool] to do [the naughty thing for which we fear them], aren't I partially responsible for [the naughty thing for which we fear them] because I let them have it?
The point he's making is that if you expose (action) your machine (tool) for the purpose of letting it get owned by spammers (subclass) and it gets owned by script kiddies (worse subclass) doing DDoS attacks (naughty thing), aren't you partially responsible for the damage by willingly giving your machine (tool) to them?
It's not that hard! While you could make the argument that people who don't keep up with their patches are also slightly responsible, he's not! He's only making the point that if you deliberately let your machine get cracked, you are willingly contributing to the problem.
So, for those of us who are incredibly lazy, what do all those compiler options do? You gotten me curious now (but not curious enough to go through the trouble of setting up CVS myself).