Blogs and even Slashdot remind me of conservative talk radio. People go there to hear other people validate and reinforce thier own pre-existing opinions. And you get a few that go there just to argue.
That's absolutely right. There are many commonalities between conservative talk radio and liberal blogging. It is a huge ideological circle-jerk, just as slashdot is a huge anti-microsoft opinion well. The tech news sphere though is a good deal more transparent and less ideological than the political news and opinion sphere. We can all try out an iPhone, a Nintendo DS, the latest Sony VIAO. Unlike politics, where the debate is about ideals and not physical things.
And the problem with tech news is that the review and editorial writers are in the pockets of the manufacturers. And all the readers know it. So why bother reading the crap? They have lied so much and so often that magazines like PC World, Byte, etc have lost all credibility. I mean, why buy content that consists of only advertisements? The damn pages are filled with enough of 'em already!
You have cherry picked my words out of context. In context, I make perfect sense. Bloggers need not report news in order to create new content readers want to consume. They need only editorial and news gathering sources to cite. And an opinion in opposition to the source the blogger knows will be well received. And bingo!
The reason these ads are moving to the blogs is because the readership is at the blogs. The reason the readership is there is because bloggers are picking apart opinion pieces throughout the editorial world and reshaping them by arguing against their positions. Thus, readership is fleeing commercial journalism because the commercial rags aren't offering what readers want.
What do readers want? These days, a little fucking truth would help. I think we're all sick of the clear commercial bias inherent in all these supposed tech reviews and bullshit 'secretly sponsored opinion'. The same is happening in professional news. TV and cable news viewership is down. WAY DOWN. Why is that? Because they don't offer news.
When these 'tech journals' hire a few more reporters and start publishing real news, you'll see their readers and advertisers follow right back. Because, frankly, the blog-0-sphere offers no substantial news reporting either.
I'm sure there are prior examples of 80col support on video too. The VT100 simply implemented what became a standard set of escape sequences for controlling its cursor. 80cols came long before.
This is coming much faster than most expect. Which (to stand up on a political soapbox) there really is no need for a permanent underclass of immigrant laborers to supposedly do jobs locals are unwilling to take. Because machines will take over those jobs very soon anyway.
Yes, Marc Rich was a bad pardon given the conflicts of interest, but it's not on the same planet as Libby's
I agree. Rich was a terrible pardon, but it didn't put into question the entire judicial system and rule of law in the process. This commutation was bullshit on so many levels, that Clinton's fucked up pardons don't even measure up in comparison. And I'm NOT defending Clinton in that statement, merely showing my contempt for Bush's total lack of consistency in his abuse of power.
Ah. I see. You simply don't believe in rule of law. If you did, you would support pushing the case all the way to the Supreme Court. To make the precedent stick. And is there not a better time than now? Instead, you blame Democrats and ignore the on the record evidence which led to conviction. Because it is biased. Or tainted. Or whatever the fuck words will bend to your preconceived notions.
But your total disregard for rule of law... that's a highly dangerous world view, and seemingly more prevalent and accepted these days among our elite. I suppose you have "good" company.
Excellent point. Someone ought to mod you up for it. I'll note, however, that while Libby may have lobbied on behalf of Marc Rich and his pardon, he was legal council to Rich and thus bound by ethics to provide that service. But, IMO, that shouldn't have meant a Rich pardon. And now you'll see no end of Bush loyalists who will bring up the Marc Rich pardon as if that obnoxious act offers a rationale for the Libby pardon. Never mind that Rich was of the loyalists long before Bush took office.
They're both corrupt. It's ugly. Both parties suck. I really wish we could wipe the slate clean and call for elections in both houses and the executive.
That's been resolved. They gave up on claiming Cheney wasn't in the executive branch once congress threatened to defund his office. Which is not to say that the irony is lost to me. I'm just so pissed off I can't laugh right now. Sorry.
Why on Earth should "finding christ" be a reason to pardon anyone for ANYTHING?
Them's just the facts. Regardless of your religious or political persuasions. Simply be glad, then, if you are opposed to the notion that her sentence should have been commuted, that she was executed in accordance with the laws of the state of Texas.
pardons and commutations since the Nixon pardon. And, perhaps, the Marc Rich pardon as well. My head is swimming. The President just commuted the sentence of a key insider to the executive branch, who committed felonies while on executive-branch time, and who hadn't even served a single day in jail. Further, he has a record of not commuting or pardoning offenders. From Carla Fey Tucker, the murderer he refused to pardon after she found Christ, to just about everyone else who has requested it during his presidency. But Scooter Libby, a man who alocuted his crimes before the court in order to receive a reduced sentence, has now just skated free.
This absolutely reeks of conflict of interest. I am ashamed of my government.
Oh, fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!
What. Are you suggesting I should have fact checked my assertion before posting to/.? Why if everyone did that, there'd be no entertaining posts to read! Heh.
2nd one keeps working, though I don't play it as much as a kid would. Using three separate - and each critical - fans for venting heat is unbelievably boneheaded stupid. As was placing the DVD-ROM drive right above the hard disk. But, as a PS3 owner too, I have to admit that the damn thing has the games. And it plays them well. Dead Rising and Gears were worth the price alone. And Command and Conquer has been just silly amounts of fun. I'd say that unless you really want Blu-Ray for movies, the 360 (with an extended warranty) is more than enough horsepower, and has the better games to boot.
Yeah. I don't think Cuba has even signed on to WIPO. So it's not like they are under any obligation to follow US copyright laws or intellectual property standards. They're gonna do whatever the hell they want, regardless if we're talking Microsoft's Windows or any random GPL'd program. But I'm sure the BSD license still gives Castro a warm and fuzzy.
Your contention was that, "some form of copyright is ensconced within the US constitution, so to achieve the ideal you propose would require a successful constitutional amendment." I think we can both agree that is not true.
Nope. I disagree. There has been far too much SC precedent to overrule commonly agreed upon ideas of copyright that stretches from the most recent decisions against filesharing all the way back. And there's the Berne convention, a ratified treaty. yada yada yada. As near as I can tell - not being a constitutional legal scholar - it would appear to take a constitutional amendment to undo all that.
I don't like dealing with deceptive details, but you brought them up to avoid the simple question, "should it be against the law for people to share with their friends and family?" Laws are based on simple principles like that, which in theory are the will of those governed. Quibbling over details obscures the real issue which should direct the course of future laws.
I think your characterization of my statements as 'deceptive' is quite unfair. As for your opinion on how law should work, I leave it for you to lobby congress, obtain a J.D. to lobby the courts, or perhaps simply to run for office. I am not in a position to change the world such that it fits your ideas of 'perfection' (nor would I want to).
MIT has an open public network. However, it uses AFS as the primary network filesystem which has fine grained ACL support. And that is used at MIT. Heavily. I can't speak to the old ITS and OZ days, but I believe they were not on the MIT net at the time. Actually, if we're going back to the seventies and early eighties, I don't think MIT even had an official ethernet deployment at the time (the dude to ask would probably be Jeff Schiller).
Ah. I see. Which would be why Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has named the proposed PIRATE ACT thus: the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation" act.
Well, we certainly agree on the text of the constitution. I'm not qualified to debate in detail the intricacies of copyright law nor the two hundred+ year history of legislation and court precedent. However, I believe your posted opinion of what that means is at variance with over one hundred years of SC precedent and the entire history of US legislation on the matter.
I don't know. Within the framework of this analogy, do I also have a firearm identification card or permit to carry such that I may legally own the weapon?
Well, I happen to disagree. However, it's perfectly reasonable to lobby that position with your legislators to have the law changed. Unfortunately, regardless of what you think should happen, the current situation criminalizes copyright infringement. Further, some form of copyright is ensconced within the US constitution, so to achieve the ideal you propose would require a successful constitutional amendment. IMO: that's an unlikely outcome.
Yeah. A real attorney could clear up a lot of confusion here. I've made my position on the argument pretty clear, but I have no idea if my opinion bears any relationship to Massachusetts law. We're starting to get into legal nitty-gritty that's certainly beyond my experience to answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Blogs and even Slashdot remind me of conservative talk radio. People go there to hear other people validate and reinforce thier own pre-existing opinions. And you get a few that go there just to argue.
That's absolutely right. There are many commonalities between conservative talk radio and liberal blogging. It is a huge ideological circle-jerk, just as slashdot is a huge anti-microsoft opinion well. The tech news sphere though is a good deal more transparent and less ideological than the political news and opinion sphere. We can all try out an iPhone, a Nintendo DS, the latest Sony VIAO. Unlike politics, where the debate is about ideals and not physical things.
And the problem with tech news is that the review and editorial writers are in the pockets of the manufacturers. And all the readers know it. So why bother reading the crap? They have lied so much and so often that magazines like PC World, Byte, etc have lost all credibility. I mean, why buy content that consists of only advertisements? The damn pages are filled with enough of 'em already!
You have cherry picked my words out of context. In context, I make perfect sense. Bloggers need not report news in order to create new content readers want to consume. They need only editorial and news gathering sources to cite. And an opinion in opposition to the source the blogger knows will be well received. And bingo!
You argument is a non sequitur.
The reason these ads are moving to the blogs is because the readership is at the blogs. The reason the readership is there is because bloggers are picking apart opinion pieces throughout the editorial world and reshaping them by arguing against their positions. Thus, readership is fleeing commercial journalism because the commercial rags aren't offering what readers want.
What do readers want? These days, a little fucking truth would help. I think we're all sick of the clear commercial bias inherent in all these supposed tech reviews and bullshit 'secretly sponsored opinion'. The same is happening in professional news. TV and cable news viewership is down. WAY DOWN. Why is that? Because they don't offer news.
When these 'tech journals' hire a few more reporters and start publishing real news, you'll see their readers and advertisers follow right back. Because, frankly, the blog-0-sphere offers no substantial news reporting either.
I'm sure there are prior examples of 80col support on video too. The VT100 simply implemented what became a standard set of escape sequences for controlling its cursor. 80cols came long before.
http://kernow.curtin.edu.au/www/Agrirobot1/frutro
This is coming much faster than most expect. Which (to stand up on a political soapbox) there really is no need for a permanent underclass of immigrant laborers to supposedly do jobs locals are unwilling to take. Because machines will take over those jobs very soon anyway.
Yes, Marc Rich was a bad pardon given the conflicts of interest, but it's not on the same planet as Libby's
I agree. Rich was a terrible pardon, but it didn't put into question the entire judicial system and rule of law in the process. This commutation was bullshit on so many levels, that Clinton's fucked up pardons don't even measure up in comparison. And I'm NOT defending Clinton in that statement, merely showing my contempt for Bush's total lack of consistency in his abuse of power.
You just nullified the entire purpose of the appeals process with that argument. Pathetic.
Ah. I see. You simply don't believe in rule of law. If you did, you would support pushing the case all the way to the Supreme Court. To make the precedent stick. And is there not a better time than now? Instead, you blame Democrats and ignore the on the record evidence which led to conviction. Because it is biased. Or tainted. Or whatever the fuck words will bend to your preconceived notions.
But your total disregard for rule of law... that's a highly dangerous world view, and seemingly more prevalent and accepted these days among our elite. I suppose you have "good" company.
The man lied to federal investigators. He then lied to a federal prosecutor. And, finally, he lied under oath.
Did you support the Clinton impeachment? Then shut the fuck up.
Excellent point. Someone ought to mod you up for it. I'll note, however, that while Libby may have lobbied on behalf of Marc Rich and his pardon, he was legal council to Rich and thus bound by ethics to provide that service. But, IMO, that shouldn't have meant a Rich pardon. And now you'll see no end of Bush loyalists who will bring up the Marc Rich pardon as if that obnoxious act offers a rationale for the Libby pardon. Never mind that Rich was of the loyalists long before Bush took office.
They're both corrupt. It's ugly. Both parties suck. I really wish we could wipe the slate clean and call for elections in both houses and the executive.
That's been resolved. They gave up on claiming Cheney wasn't in the executive branch once congress threatened to defund his office. Which is not to say that the irony is lost to me. I'm just so pissed off I can't laugh right now. Sorry.
Why on Earth should "finding christ" be a reason to pardon anyone for ANYTHING?
Them's just the facts. Regardless of your religious or political persuasions. Simply be glad, then, if you are opposed to the notion that her sentence should have been commuted, that she was executed in accordance with the laws of the state of Texas.
pardons and commutations since the Nixon pardon. And, perhaps, the Marc Rich pardon as well. My head is swimming. The President just commuted the sentence of a key insider to the executive branch, who committed felonies while on executive-branch time, and who hadn't even served a single day in jail. Further, he has a record of not commuting or pardoning offenders. From Carla Fey Tucker, the murderer he refused to pardon after she found Christ, to just about everyone else who has requested it during his presidency. But Scooter Libby, a man who alocuted his crimes before the court in order to receive a reduced sentence, has now just skated free.
This absolutely reeks of conflict of interest. I am ashamed of my government.
Oh, fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!
What. Are you suggesting I should have fact checked my assertion before posting to /.? Why if everyone did that, there'd be no entertaining posts to read! Heh.
:)
BTW: thanks.
2nd one keeps working, though I don't play it as much as a kid would. Using three separate - and each critical - fans for venting heat is unbelievably boneheaded stupid. As was placing the DVD-ROM drive right above the hard disk. But, as a PS3 owner too, I have to admit that the damn thing has the games. And it plays them well. Dead Rising and Gears were worth the price alone. And Command and Conquer has been just silly amounts of fun. I'd say that unless you really want Blu-Ray for movies, the 360 (with an extended warranty) is more than enough horsepower, and has the better games to boot.
Yeah. I don't think Cuba has even signed on to WIPO. So it's not like they are under any obligation to follow US copyright laws or intellectual property standards. They're gonna do whatever the hell they want, regardless if we're talking Microsoft's Windows or any random GPL'd program. But I'm sure the BSD license still gives Castro a warm and fuzzy.
Ohhhhhhhhh.....
Your contention was that, "some form of copyright is ensconced within the US constitution, so to achieve the ideal you propose would require a successful constitutional amendment." I think we can both agree that is not true.
Nope. I disagree. There has been far too much SC precedent to overrule commonly agreed upon ideas of copyright that stretches from the most recent decisions against filesharing all the way back. And there's the Berne convention, a ratified treaty. yada yada yada. As near as I can tell - not being a constitutional legal scholar - it would appear to take a constitutional amendment to undo all that.
I don't like dealing with deceptive details, but you brought them up to avoid the simple question, "should it be against the law for people to share with their friends and family?" Laws are based on simple principles like that, which in theory are the will of those governed. Quibbling over details obscures the real issue which should direct the course of future laws.
I think your characterization of my statements as 'deceptive' is quite unfair. As for your opinion on how law should work, I leave it for you to lobby congress, obtain a J.D. to lobby the courts, or perhaps simply to run for office. I am not in a position to change the world such that it fits your ideas of 'perfection' (nor would I want to).
MIT has an open public network. However, it uses AFS as the primary network filesystem which has fine grained ACL support. And that is used at MIT. Heavily. I can't speak to the old ITS and OZ days, but I believe they were not on the MIT net at the time. Actually, if we're going back to the seventies and early eighties, I don't think MIT even had an official ethernet deployment at the time (the dude to ask would probably be Jeff Schiller).
Ah. I see. Which would be why Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has named the proposed PIRATE ACT thus: the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation" act.
*cough!*
Well, we certainly agree on the text of the constitution. I'm not qualified to debate in detail the intricacies of copyright law nor the two hundred+ year history of legislation and court precedent. However, I believe your posted opinion of what that means is at variance with over one hundred years of SC precedent and the entire history of US legislation on the matter.
*shrug*
Every library I know takes some form of payment for a photocopy. Usually a nickel per sheet.
I don't know. Within the framework of this analogy, do I also have a firearm identification card or permit to carry such that I may legally own the weapon?
Well, I happen to disagree. However, it's perfectly reasonable to lobby that position with your legislators to have the law changed. Unfortunately, regardless of what you think should happen, the current situation criminalizes copyright infringement. Further, some form of copyright is ensconced within the US constitution, so to achieve the ideal you propose would require a successful constitutional amendment. IMO: that's an unlikely outcome.
Yeah. A real attorney could clear up a lot of confusion here. I've made my position on the argument pretty clear, but I have no idea if my opinion bears any relationship to Massachusetts law. We're starting to get into legal nitty-gritty that's certainly beyond my experience to answer.