One of the problems with enforcing a law like this is determining when to stop enforcing it. Case in point: What constitutes a "Nazi-related" item? There are some obvious examples that everybody would probably agree on.. for example, an authentic Swastika flag used by the Third Reich would doubtless be classified as Nazi-related.
However, what about something like Hitler's book Mein Kampf? Is it Nazi-related? Inasmuch as the book is about his youth and his early days in the Nazi party, the answer would probably be "yes." But does it fall under the same general category as general Nazi memorabilia such as flags, silverware, etc.? The book arguably has some value to society because it serves as a window into the soul of one of the sickest, vilest human beings ever to walk the planet. You can't effectively battle what you don't understand, and so you might make the case that the book's intimate portrait of Hitler's mindset and thought processes are more important than its objectionable content.
What about Raiders of the Lost Ark? Is it Nazi-related?
The problem here is no different than it is any other time a government or group attempts to censor or "protect" its citizens/constituents from material that it deems harmful, offensive, or dangerous. "Harmful, offensive, and dangerous" are not black-and-white litmus tests that can be applied equally in all situations. When a government or group takes it upon itself to decide what people can see/say/read/etc., they are engaging in the intellectual equivalent of book-burning. Ironically, the Nazis were very much into book-burning.
.. from the book "Our Dumb Century", which is essentially a set of newspaper parodies from the year 1900 to 2000 (starting with the assassination of President McKinley and ending with the ascension of the Christian Right to heaven.) The headlines marking the beginning of World War I looked something like this:
WAR DECLARED BY ALL
States Sue RIAA Sues Napster Sues Metallica Sues Courtney Love Sues Orthodox Jews Sue Barney the Dinosaur Sues Dr. Dre Sues Puff the Magic Dragon
TIME-WARNER ALMOST SUES ITSELF
Companies Struggle to Remember Allies
Does anybody believe that Moody's "article" was intended to do anything other than generate page hits, rile up Linux users, and get them to send scathing flames that can later be used to show the "immaturity of the community?" Personally, I would have rather seen Slashdot ignore this story altogether. Anybody who knows anything about Moody's past associations and opinions knows that he has a clear agenda, and that agenda does not particularly care for the success of Linux.
IMHO, while it's good to write a rebuttal to an obvious nonsense article, it's also probably giving Moody's troll a bit more attention than it deserves.
Note, however, that the spammers don't particularly care if they're fed. They just wait for a new story to be posted and let loose. If people reply to their posts, they don't care. If people don't reply, they don't care. It's not possible to "feed" the "penis bird guy" or the "magenta syringe" guy because they're not paying attention anyway.
I don't think there is anything of quality posted anonymously - hasn't been for a long time.
<COSTANZA>Ah-HAA!</COSTANZA>
But how can you tell?
Seriously.. if Slashdot were to run a story about rumors of Fooblatz Corporation beating its workers with aluminum bats if they fall behind in production, and if some employee were to post anonymously confirming the rumor, who would see it if it were bracketed on each side by 20 "And today's topic is: MDMA" posts?
I've seen plenty of AC posts in the recent past moderated up for being interesting, insightful, and (most prevalent) funny. Just because most ACs have nothing of importance to say doesn't mean that they all do. AFAIK, the ability for people to post information without fear of being identified or tracked down is one of the primary things keeping Rob from doing away with (or crippling) the AC system.
I find that anything posted by what is obviously a "new" user (currently user numbers around 216,000 or so) is almost certainly junk..
This is a bit of a stretch. Sure, there are a lot of people who have obtained accounts for no purpose other than to post crap. But to suggest that everybody on the Internet that can meaningfully contribute to Slashdot already has an account here is, well, probably wrong.:-)
Correct, but again we are talking about moral climate, not censorship.
I don't know that this is all about moral climate. If I was paying five people to write code, I would have the same objections if they were all playing Diablo II as I would if they were sending out sex jokes. It's a productivity issue, not a morality issue. Still, you have a point.
(1) What's going to be my minimum mandatory sentence if the cops find me with a couple of ounces of pot on me, or a dozen E tablets?
Depends on your local laws. Personally, while I think that the criminalization of marijuana use is ridiculous, there are some drugs that are best left illegal (cocaine, heroin, etc.) I don't see how this is a censorship issue.
(2) What do you think will happen if I make a sexual joke at my workplace? If I email it to some of my colleagues?
I dunno. Depends on your company's policies. These aren't free speech or censorship issues. Your company is perfectly within its rights to request that you not use their resources (machines, network bandwidth, etc.) to send sex jokes around the office. If you're on the company's clock, I think any reasonable person would agree that you're subject to their policies. It's just like a Jehovah's Witness has no right to come barging into my living room and preach to me if I don't want them to. They might have the freedom of speech and religion, but that doesn't logically extend to my personal space. In my space, I set the rules, and I don't see how anybody could argue that an employer isn't entitled to do the same thing.
Now, Slashdot at work might be a different story.;-)
If you can't see correllations between your government and pre-Nazi germany, go get a textbook and do some reading.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The groups mentioned in this article, such as the American Family Association, are independent groups, comprised mostly of Christian fundamentalists. The same can be said of groups such as the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the right-wing thought police organizations. They are not affiliated with the United States government in any way, with the possible exception of having the support of some right-wing politicians. In fact, the typical right-wing thought policeman harbors extreme hatred towards our government.
Recently, the United States government has struck down things such as student-led prayers at school. It has struck down attempts to censor the Internet (remember the Communications Decency Act? When was the last time you heard anything about that?) It has repeatedly and consistently upheld the right of women to have access to abortions if necessary. You can attack hard-line right-wingers all day if you want, but realize that nearly all of them consider the United States government to be their sworn mortal enemy. Sure, there are some right-wing moralist nuts in our government, but they, like everybody else, are required to operate under the constraints levied by the United States Constitution. If they get out of line, the courts are all over them before they know what hit them.
You seem to have this impression that the United States is filled up primarily with prudes, moralists, and thought police that are hell-bent on making sure that people aren't exposed to any material that might make their penis hard or make them question their personal relationship with Jesus. In reality, this is not the case. The advocates of censorware and book-burning and sodomy laws and things like that are in a small (but very vocal) minority. They have taken it upon themselves to protect "the majority" from all these things that they find evil, immoral, or otherwise unwholesome, but the fact of the matter is that most of "the majority" could care less.
In short, you're trying to pigeonhole Americans with this carefully-cultivated mental image that is probably the result of reading too many religious trolls on Slashdot. Very few Americans are "bible thumpers." Very few Americans are content to let the "moral right" tell them how to live their lives and behave in their bedrooms. Very few Americans have "hangups about sex." As a matter of fact, the "moral right" in America serves a very useful purpose.. it provides talk show hosts with a never-ending supply of joke fodder. Most folks I know pity the "moral right" and the sad, angry little world in which they live. Don't try to paint all Americans with the same brush.
You guys (and I mean "guys" in a purely unisexual sense) remember the Communications Decency Act, don't you? Let's assume this bill passes, and let's further assume that the President signs it. Where do we go from here? I'll tell you, in three simple words: the Supreme Court. Obviously, there are many things about the American legislative process that are completely and totally fucked up. The ability for lawmakers to attach totally unrelated riders and to insert completely irrelevant legislation in the middle of other laws is something that has been abused for decades.
Still, the founding fathers were wise enough to envision something like this happening. That's why they established the system of checks and balances that every high school government student is obligated to learn about. If this law passes, and if it is used to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens, there can be no doubt that it will be in front of a judge faster than you can blink your eye. This is what happened with the CDA. When was the last time you heard anything about the CDA?
Anybody who observes politics these days has to have a certain amount of cynicism. Still, I have faith that the system will work as it was intended to. There are elements in both the left and right wings of American politics that would like to conveniently ignore certain parts of the Constitution, but they cannot make the Constitution go away. The First Amendment should prohibit schools from actively organizing prayers and it should protect my right to speak my mind and voice unpopular opinions about the government. The Second Amendment should guarantee my right to own reasonable firearm if I so desire. The Fourth Amendment should protect me from unreasonable search and seizure by agents of the government. And so forth.
If the legislative and executive branches of government try to pass laws that ignore any of this, the judicial branch will jump all over that shit as is their duty. Call me a hopeless idealist, but even if this bill does pass, I don't see any reason for us (Americans) to worry.
So my question is: how appropriate is it for people to use their website as a medium to raise consciousness and solicit donations for whatever cause they are currently supporting?
The two key words in the above sentence are:
"their website"
This is not your Web site, nor is it mine. It is the Slashdot crew's Web site, and the last time I checked, it is both legal and appropriate for them to post material as they see fit. If they post something that you find to be objectionable, you are under no obligation to either read or respond to any of it. You do not have a service agreement with Andover or Rob or any of the crew, nor do you pay them a plugged nickel for the use of their resources. Therefore, you do not have a leg to stand on when you complain about the material that they decide to post, particularly when you can simply ignore it completely.
The Slash code is publicly available; if you wish to start up a Web site where solicitations of any kind are not posted, then you have more than enough tools to get you on your way. Until then, I would encourage you to keep reading and contributing to Slashdot, but ignore that which bores or offends you.
That said, I am going to add some DeCSS-related material to my home page.. that is, if it's all right with you.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but the rule is that movies must be distributed on film first to be eligible for Oscars. You could release your film theatrically, and then put it on the internet the next day, and you'd be fine.
If you're an indie director hoping to use the Internet to test screen your film, that order is a little bass-ackward.
I think you're underestimating how professional "independent" filmmakers are. We're not talking about some kid with a Handicam. I don't know this for certain, but I'm pretty sure that they could just fill the requirement by renting out a local theater for the night and holding a screening.
Of course we're not talking about kids with Handicams. But the most effective test screenings usually consist of many audiences in many parts of the country. The more eyes, the better. The big studios can handle this simply by roping up X number of screens in theaters in major markets all over the nation. Indie directors obviously cannot do this. They may have a budget of twenty or thirty thousand dollars, where every last cent must be spent judiciously. Sure, a night at some local second-run theater might be arranged, but that doesn't come anywhere near the amount of audience exposure a typical director or producer wants in a test screening.
I think the ruling is intended to do exactly what it says: ensure that the Academy Awards for film continue to be awards for film.
If the movie is put on film and released theatrically on film, then why should the fact that it happened to be screened pre-release on the Internet have anything to do with its elibility for an Oscar? If the ruling was about movies that were released exclusively on the Internet and were never printed to film and shown in theaters, I don't think that anybody would have a problem with it.
Made for TV movies are also not eligible for Oscars... Is this a surprise?
If the movies stayed on TV and were never released theatrically, then no.. this would not be a surprise. What the Academy is saying is that even if you do release the movie theatrically, you're out of the running for an Oscar if you disseminate it using any method other than theatrical exhibition.
Here's why this is significant. When a movie is ready for release, it is advantageous to get some audience reaction to determine how well they like the film. After all, just because the director happens to find a certain scene to be funny/dramatic/whatever doesn't mean that general audiences will. By judging how the audience reacts to a film, the producer and/or director can decide which scenes need to be cut, changed, or augmented. Now, if the movie is being put out by a major studio, this is not a problem. They just have test screenings in select cities and hire people to come in and gauge the audience's responsiveness to the film.
If you're an indie producer or director, on the other hand, that is not an option. You can't afford to test-screen your movie in "select cities." An idea that many in the indie business are warming to, though, is the concept of distributing a prerelease version of your film via the Internet. This way, diehard film fans can watch your movie and provide you with feedback, which, in the end, can help you put out a better movie. Once you make the necessary modification, you can then release the film theatrically using the budget that you do have.
IMHO, this ruling is intended to stifle independent films. The Academy has a lot of relationships with a lot of the big studios, and there is no disputing the fact that in recent years, many indie films have been a hell of a lot better than the crap that the major studios have been trowling out. The Academy is looking out for its own; it clearly does not wish to allow independent directors the ability to have their films test-screened in the same manner that their big studio counterparts do.
On the other hand, you can simply dismiss the Academy Awards as a meaningful indicator of the quality of a movie and instead rely on the opinions of objective reviewers. That's a process that seems to work pretty well.
Most hardware that can access DVDs will not allow you to even read the *encrypted* data unless you unlock it first. I'd imagine that means that you would not be able to copy a DVD without DeCSS.
Err.. no.
If you have a DVD-ROM drive and a DVD movie handy, mount it up and examine the directory structure. DVD movies are stored on the media in UDF (Universal Disk Format) format; you can download the UDF specification from the Optical Storage Technology Association. There is a standard directory structure for all DVD-Video discs. For example, the VIDEO_TS directory contains files that contain pointers to the sectors on the media that contain the actual video streams. There is an AUDIO_TS that does the same for audio. If you're interested in specifics on the filesystem, here's a link with more information.
The point is that none of this structure is an industry secret (it's actually a widely-available standard), and nothing prevents you from reading the video or audio content on the CD. The problem is that you cannot meaningfully use it (read: play it) unless you get around the Content Scrambling System. Again, there is nothing that prevents people from doing a direct content-to-content copy of a DVD-Video disc. CSS is meant to restrict use of the content, not readability.
This is an interesting thought, but it's worth remembering that the Academy is not talking about films that are released exclusively over the Internet. Let's say that I'm an indie director/producer, and I've just finished up with a film. In order to measure the audience response to the film before I release it theatrically, I put it out on the Internet for movie fans/critics to download, view, and submit their comments. (Think of it as a peer review.) Once I get the audience reaction back and make the appropriate changes, I then release the film theatrically. What the Academy is saying is that my film is not eligible for an Oscar by virtue of the fact that I exhibited it using the Internet before it was released theatrically on film. I can understand having a separate set of awards for films that are released exclusively on the Internet, but does this make any sense?
Incidentally, the idea of using the Internet as a testbed for a movie is an idea that is catching on with many indie producers and directors. Of course, the big studios just have "test screenings" in several select cities where they show the movie and have representatives there to measure the audience's response to the movie. Obviously, independent producers cannot afford such luxuries, and even if they could, they do not have the connections they would need to arrange such test screenings. This whole ruling seems like it was designed to stifle indie movies in favor of studio movies. In a way, this is hardly surprising, since the Academy is just "looking after its own." On the other hand, since independent producers have been putting out products that have been of consistently higher quality than most of the big studio films, this is a Bad Thing for movie fans.
So what gives? Reactionary fear because of the DVD DeCSS revenue losses?.. there's a reason they're fighting so hard against anything that would enable import of $5 DVDs from less developed countries.
Keep in mind that DeCSS has absolutely nothing to do with piracy when it comes to duplicating DVDs. DVD movies are essentially just UDF v1.02 filesystems (IIRC). The content scrambling is done at the file level, not at the filesystem level. You do not need to circumvent CSS in order to duplicate a DVD. You do need to circumvent it if you wish to view the content of the DVD. The long and short of it is that despite what the MPAA claims, the DeCSS debate has nothing to do with piracy. The debate is actually about access to the content contained on a piece of media that you purchased and legally own.
names look weird unless you keep them to ISO-9660's 8.3 limits).
That's ISO 9660 level 1. Level 2 lets you have filenames that are up to 31 characters in length. The reason for this restriction is that the Mac OS cannot currently handle filenames that are longer than this, and an industry standard is useless if it is not implementable across a wide variety of platforms. Nevertheless, the ISO 9660 implementations found in most other operating systems (i.e., Linux, Windows, etc.) happily handle filenames that are longer than this, and that's a good thing.. a lot of MP3s obviously have pretty long filenames!
Unfortunately, I had to manually add an extra option ("-e") to mkisofs to get it to pre-master images with the longer filenames. Sure, it breaks ISO 9660, but doesn't seem to cause any problems on any OS other than the Mac OS.. and this doesn't bother me since I don't own any Macs.
When is somebody going to make a stereo component that reads ISO9660 filesystems, goes into the directory structure, assembles a list of the MP3 files in the filesystem, and then plays them? I like to burn CD-Rs full of MP3s (which amounts to about eleven hours worth of music), bring them to work, and listen to music all day with xmms (never once hearing the same song twice.) It would be nice if I could take that same CD and throw it into a MP3 stereo component and have it be able to recognize the format.
Hard drives are nice, but IMHO removable media is nicer. That way you don't have to maintain a network connection between your stereo and your computer. Or better yet, do it both ways (of course, that type of design decision tends to affect the price tag..)
The hostility toward religion, especially Christian religions, in current society is troubling.
Sorry, but this really burns me. I'm sure you're aware that there are people in the world who are being imprisoned and even executed for expressing their religious beliefs. And yet there are those in the United States (or, more generally, in the West) who have the unmitigated gall to claim that Christians are the target of persecution here. This, quite simply, is horrendously disrespectful to people who really are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
Sure, people express hostility towards Christianity. The obvious reason why there is more hostility towards Christianity is that it is the most dominant religion! Furthermore, many outspoken Christians tend to be unfortunately outspoken. You don't see Muslims and Hindus attacking biologists and attempting to turn the clock on science education back to the Bronze Age. You don't see sites such as "www.allahhatesfags.com." Yes, I am aware that literalist creationists and Phelps-like hatemongers make up a very small percentage of those who claim to be "Christians", but certainly you must see how that one tiny brush can paint a bad image on the whole barn, particularly when those who do claim to be "mainstream" Christians are not particularly active in rebuking their more vociferous brethren.
With regards to school prayer, I wonder what the life expectancy would be for somebody who got up in front of a football stadium in South Texas and loudly proclaimed: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet." Yes, I am aware that the standard counter-argument to this is that there are very few Muslims in South Texas, and that most of the people at the game are Christians, and therefore since the majority rules, it should be okay to have an institutionalized Christian prayer before the game.
The problem with "majority rules" is the same problem with democracy in general: in and of itself, it can be a very dangerous thing. The founding fathers of America recognized this, and this is why we have a constitutional republic as our system of government. Democracy only works when it is fit into a system like this, because otherwise it degenerates to mob rule, and mob rule can quite often be very unsavory.
As an example of this, there was recently a small Southern city whose population consisted largely of Christian conservatives. It was discovered that prostitutes were hanging out downtown. How did the city council deal with this? They passed a law forbidding women from wearing shorts after 6:00 PM (because obviously, any woman who would do such a thing is a whore.) And the funny thing is that the majority of the people in the city agreed with the law. Is this the kind of situation that we need on a regular basis?
This is the whole reason we have a Constitution. It prevents things like this from taking place. The majority of the people might have agreed with the above theocratic law, but tyranny is tyranny. The Constitution establishes a framework -- a set of boundaries under which our democracy must operate. It has nothing to do with "the right to not be offended" or any other such rhetoric. The whole purpose is to prevent mob rule, sometimes referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."
I work for Dell.. I can't believe they decided to bundle their computers with shit.
Hmm. The last time I bought a Dell, it was bundled with styrofoam. Perhaps the engineers at Dell have discovered that fecal matter provides better shock absorbtion?
Only a higher being could have given us a rose, a bald eagle, a rainbow, etc.
Yes, but that would then mean that the "higher being" also gave us Pauly Shore. This is direct evidence against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving.
ARTICLES ABOUT LINUX GOING MAINSTREAM BEGINNING TO GO MAINSTREAM News Organizations Feel More Comfortable About Reporting On Open-Source OS
ATLANTA, GA (AP) - News organizations such as CNN and ABC News are beginning to warm up to the Linux operating system. Linux, which is an "open source" operating system that provides an alternative to Microsoft Windows, has been seeing gradually more media coverage over the course of the past year or so. Although the popular operating system has been in use in the industry's mainstream for quite some time now, news stories about the OS's mainstream status were considered "fringe" by major media outlets, and were generally avoided.
"A year or so ago, you would never have seen an article about how Linux has entered the mainstream," explained Steve Kinsworth, a senior editor at Brill's Content. "Articles like that were considered 'niche articles' that had a very limited readership. The majority of people would have no use for such articles, and would be better served by articles about systems such as Microsoft Windows. These days, though, everybody is jumping on the Linux mainstream reporting bandwagon. Reporting about Linux's mainstream status has jumped from fringe to mainstream. We are very excited by all this."
Leonard Shaffer, Vice-President of Corporate Egotism at Wired, echoed Kinsworth's sentiments. "The media is in love with Linux and stories about how it has gone mainstream. Just a few months ago, if you had gone into your editor's office and suggested doing an article about Linux, the response would have been 'Huh?' or 'You wanna write about what?' These days, editors and managers all over are chomping at the bit to get more coverage of mainstream Linux onto the pages of their magazine."
Not everybody shares the enthusiasm, however. Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp. and owner of the Fox News Channel, has publicly decried the coverage of the operating system. "I am deeply disturbed by the mainstreaming of coverage of Linux as mainstream," Murdoch said. "We at the Fox News Channel cater to the Christian Right and to ultra-paranoid conservatives," Murdoch explained. "We have absolutely no interest in blubbering all over some sort of leftist free-love collectivist liberal mishmash of computer code." Fox News contributor Bob Dornan agreed, calling Linux author Linus Torvalds "the anti-Christ."
It is a ridiculous, preposterous story, and you think that people would want some proof before they devote their life to it! What you should really do is put your faith in Jesus..
I'm going to make the safe assumption that this irony was intentional, and take this opportunity to congratulate you on a very funny bit of satire.:-)
NEWS: Pizza Hut Ad Sent to Chinese Embassy
on
Advertising Via GPS
·
· Score: 4
PIZZA HUT AD ACCIDENTALLY SENT TO CHINESE EMBASSY Beijing Reportedly "Furious" Over Uninvited Capitalist Intrusion
BELGRADE, SERBIA (AP) - In what the US State Department is calling an "unfortunate mistake", the Belgrade embassy of the People's Republic of China was the target for several Pizza Hut advertisements earlier this evening. Originating from a communications satellite orbiting the Earth at an altitude of several hundred miles, the advertisements had been ordered by Stanley Blyleven, Pizza Hut's vice president of marketing. The messages were received by an on-duty secretary who forwarded them to her immediate supervisor.
"We are so sorry," explained Blyleven. "We thought that we had targeted the Swedish embassy." Blyleven blamed the targeting snafu on "an outdated map that had tomato sauce smeared on it." "It was certainly not our intent to intrude on the Chinese embassy," said Blyleven. "We did not want to intentionally inform the Chinese people about our fresh, plentiful, mouth-watering toppings, our heaping pounds of zesty cheese, or our tantalizing variety of crust styles. It was a mistake; it was simply an honest mistake."
A spokesman for Chinese president Jiang Zemin stated that the incident had "upset him deeply, and could possibly represent a near-irreperable rift in US-Sino relations." State Department spokesman James Rubin had been in contact with a representative of Zemin, but little progress was made in the quest to quell the outrage in Beijing. "The Chinese government views this as a capitalist intrusion into their governmental affairs," reported Rubin. "Although we have explained several times that this was a mistake made by Pizza Hut, we feel that this incident may have been a serious setback."
President Bill Clinton appealed for calm and a mushroom/pepperoni combo with extra cheese.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems with enforcing a law like this is determining when to stop enforcing it. Case in point: What constitutes a "Nazi-related" item? There are some obvious examples that everybody would probably agree on .. for example, an authentic Swastika flag used by the Third Reich would doubtless be classified as Nazi-related.
However, what about something like Hitler's book Mein Kampf? Is it Nazi-related? Inasmuch as the book is about his youth and his early days in the Nazi party, the answer would probably be "yes." But does it fall under the same general category as general Nazi memorabilia such as flags, silverware, etc.? The book arguably has some value to society because it serves as a window into the soul of one of the sickest, vilest human beings ever to walk the planet. You can't effectively battle what you don't understand, and so you might make the case that the book's intimate portrait of Hitler's mindset and thought processes are more important than its objectionable content.
What about Raiders of the Lost Ark? Is it Nazi-related?
The problem here is no different than it is any other time a government or group attempts to censor or "protect" its citizens/constituents from material that it deems harmful, offensive, or dangerous. "Harmful, offensive, and dangerous" are not black-and-white litmus tests that can be applied equally in all situations. When a government or group takes it upon itself to decide what people can see/say/read/etc., they are engaging in the intellectual equivalent of book-burning. Ironically, the Nazis were very much into book-burning.
.. from the book "Our Dumb Century", which is essentially a set of newspaper parodies from the year 1900 to 2000 (starting with the assassination of President McKinley and ending with the ascension of the Christian Right to heaven.) The headlines marking the beginning of World War I looked something like this:
WAR DECLARED BY ALL
States Sue RIAA Sues Napster Sues Metallica Sues Courtney Love Sues Orthodox Jews Sue Barney the Dinosaur Sues Dr. Dre Sues Puff the Magic Dragon
TIME-WARNER ALMOST SUES ITSELF
Companies Struggle to Remember Allies
Does anybody believe that Moody's "article" was intended to do anything other than generate page hits, rile up Linux users, and get them to send scathing flames that can later be used to show the "immaturity of the community?" Personally, I would have rather seen Slashdot ignore this story altogether. Anybody who knows anything about Moody's past associations and opinions knows that he has a clear agenda, and that agenda does not particularly care for the success of Linux.
IMHO, while it's good to write a rebuttal to an obvious nonsense article, it's also probably giving Moody's troll a bit more attention than it deserves.
a) avoid feeding the trolls and spammers
.. if Slashdot were to run a story about rumors of Fooblatz Corporation beating its workers with aluminum bats if they fall behind in production, and if some employee were to post anonymously confirming the rumor, who would see it if it were bracketed on each side by 20 "And today's topic is: MDMA" posts?
..
:-)
Note, however, that the spammers don't particularly care if they're fed. They just wait for a new story to be posted and let loose. If people reply to their posts, they don't care. If people don't reply, they don't care. It's not possible to "feed" the "penis bird guy" or the "magenta syringe" guy because they're not paying attention anyway.
I don't think there is anything of quality posted anonymously - hasn't been for a long time.
<COSTANZA>Ah-HAA!</COSTANZA>
But how can you tell?
Seriously
I've seen plenty of AC posts in the recent past moderated up for being interesting, insightful, and (most prevalent) funny. Just because most ACs have nothing of importance to say doesn't mean that they all do. AFAIK, the ability for people to post information without fear of being identified or tracked down is one of the primary things keeping Rob from doing away with (or crippling) the AC system.
I find that anything posted by what is obviously a "new" user (currently user numbers around 216,000 or so) is almost certainly junk
This is a bit of a stretch. Sure, there are a lot of people who have obtained accounts for no purpose other than to post crap. But to suggest that everybody on the Internet that can meaningfully contribute to Slashdot already has an account here is, well, probably wrong.
Correct, but again we are talking about moral climate, not censorship.
I don't know that this is all about moral climate. If I was paying five people to write code, I would have the same objections if they were all playing Diablo II as I would if they were sending out sex jokes. It's a productivity issue, not a morality issue. Still, you have a point.
(1) What's going to be my minimum mandatory sentence if the cops find me with a couple of ounces of pot on me, or a dozen E tablets?
;-)
Depends on your local laws. Personally, while I think that the criminalization of marijuana use is ridiculous, there are some drugs that are best left illegal (cocaine, heroin, etc.) I don't see how this is a censorship issue.
(2) What do you think will happen if I make a sexual joke at my workplace? If I email it to some of my colleagues?
I dunno. Depends on your company's policies. These aren't free speech or censorship issues. Your company is perfectly within its rights to request that you not use their resources (machines, network bandwidth, etc.) to send sex jokes around the office. If you're on the company's clock, I think any reasonable person would agree that you're subject to their policies. It's just like a Jehovah's Witness has no right to come barging into my living room and preach to me if I don't want them to. They might have the freedom of speech and religion, but that doesn't logically extend to my personal space. In my space, I set the rules, and I don't see how anybody could argue that an employer isn't entitled to do the same thing.
Now, Slashdot at work might be a different story.
If you can't see correllations between your government and pre-Nazi germany, go get a textbook and do some reading.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The groups mentioned in this article, such as the American Family Association, are independent groups, comprised mostly of Christian fundamentalists. The same can be said of groups such as the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the right-wing thought police organizations. They are not affiliated with the United States government in any way, with the possible exception of having the support of some right-wing politicians. In fact, the typical right-wing thought policeman harbors extreme hatred towards our government.
Recently, the United States government has struck down things such as student-led prayers at school. It has struck down attempts to censor the Internet (remember the Communications Decency Act? When was the last time you heard anything about that?) It has repeatedly and consistently upheld the right of women to have access to abortions if necessary. You can attack hard-line right-wingers all day if you want, but realize that nearly all of them consider the United States government to be their sworn mortal enemy. Sure, there are some right-wing moralist nuts in our government, but they, like everybody else, are required to operate under the constraints levied by the United States Constitution. If they get out of line, the courts are all over them before they know what hit them.
By the way, it's pronounced "gub-mint."
You seem to have this impression that the United States is filled up primarily with prudes, moralists, and thought police that are hell-bent on making sure that people aren't exposed to any material that might make their penis hard or make them question their personal relationship with Jesus. In reality, this is not the case. The advocates of censorware and book-burning and sodomy laws and things like that are in a small (but very vocal) minority. They have taken it upon themselves to protect "the majority" from all these things that they find evil, immoral, or otherwise unwholesome, but the fact of the matter is that most of "the majority" could care less.
.. it provides talk show hosts with a never-ending supply of joke fodder. Most folks I know pity the "moral right" and the sad, angry little world in which they live. Don't try to paint all Americans with the same brush.
In short, you're trying to pigeonhole Americans with this carefully-cultivated mental image that is probably the result of reading too many religious trolls on Slashdot. Very few Americans are "bible thumpers." Very few Americans are content to let the "moral right" tell them how to live their lives and behave in their bedrooms. Very few Americans have "hangups about sex." As a matter of fact, the "moral right" in America serves a very useful purpose
You guys (and I mean "guys" in a purely unisexual sense) remember the Communications Decency Act, don't you? Let's assume this bill passes, and let's further assume that the President signs it. Where do we go from here? I'll tell you, in three simple words: the Supreme Court. Obviously, there are many things about the American legislative process that are completely and totally fucked up. The ability for lawmakers to attach totally unrelated riders and to insert completely irrelevant legislation in the middle of other laws is something that has been abused for decades.
Still, the founding fathers were wise enough to envision something like this happening. That's why they established the system of checks and balances that every high school government student is obligated to learn about. If this law passes, and if it is used to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens, there can be no doubt that it will be in front of a judge faster than you can blink your eye. This is what happened with the CDA. When was the last time you heard anything about the CDA?
Anybody who observes politics these days has to have a certain amount of cynicism. Still, I have faith that the system will work as it was intended to. There are elements in both the left and right wings of American politics that would like to conveniently ignore certain parts of the Constitution, but they cannot make the Constitution go away. The First Amendment should prohibit schools from actively organizing prayers and it should protect my right to speak my mind and voice unpopular opinions about the government. The Second Amendment should guarantee my right to own reasonable firearm if I so desire. The Fourth Amendment should protect me from unreasonable search and seizure by agents of the government. And so forth.
If the legislative and executive branches of government try to pass laws that ignore any of this, the judicial branch will jump all over that shit as is their duty. Call me a hopeless idealist, but even if this bill does pass, I don't see any reason for us (Americans) to worry.
This story just happened to be submitted by an "anonymous author?"
.. pull the other leg, why dontcha. :-)
Go on
So my question is: how appropriate is it for people to use their website as a medium to raise consciousness and solicit donations for whatever cause they are currently supporting?
.. that is, if it's all right with you.
The two key words in the above sentence are:
"their website"
This is not your Web site, nor is it mine. It is the Slashdot crew's Web site, and the last time I checked, it is both legal and appropriate for them to post material as they see fit. If they post something that you find to be objectionable, you are under no obligation to either read or respond to any of it. You do not have a service agreement with Andover or Rob or any of the crew, nor do you pay them a plugged nickel for the use of their resources. Therefore, you do not have a leg to stand on when you complain about the material that they decide to post, particularly when you can simply ignore it completely.
The Slash code is publicly available; if you wish to start up a Web site where solicitations of any kind are not posted, then you have more than enough tools to get you on your way. Until then, I would encourage you to keep reading and contributing to Slashdot, but ignore that which bores or offends you.
That said, I am going to add some DeCSS-related material to my home page
:-)
Come on, guys .. I read this last week on ZDNet.
.. congratulations, dude. :-)
The least you fellas could do is show a little bit of journalistic initiative.
All kidding aside
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but the rule is that movies must be distributed on film first to be eligible for Oscars. You could release your film theatrically, and then put it on the internet the next day, and you'd be fine.
If you're an indie director hoping to use the Internet to test screen your film, that order is a little bass-ackward.
I think you're underestimating how professional "independent" filmmakers are. We're not talking about some kid with a Handicam. I don't know this for certain, but I'm pretty sure that they could just fill the requirement by renting out a local theater for the night and holding a screening.
Of course we're not talking about kids with Handicams. But the most effective test screenings usually consist of many audiences in many parts of the country. The more eyes, the better. The big studios can handle this simply by roping up X number of screens in theaters in major markets all over the nation. Indie directors obviously cannot do this. They may have a budget of twenty or thirty thousand dollars, where every last cent must be spent judiciously. Sure, a night at some local second-run theater might be arranged, but that doesn't come anywhere near the amount of audience exposure a typical director or producer wants in a test screening.
I think the ruling is intended to do exactly what it says: ensure that the Academy Awards for film continue to be awards for film.
If the movie is put on film and released theatrically on film, then why should the fact that it happened to be screened pre-release on the Internet have anything to do with its elibility for an Oscar? If the ruling was about movies that were released exclusively on the Internet and were never printed to film and shown in theaters, I don't think that anybody would have a problem with it.
Made for TV movies are also not eligible for Oscars. .. Is this a surprise?
.. this would not be a surprise. What the Academy is saying is that even if you do release the movie theatrically, you're out of the running for an Oscar if you disseminate it using any method other than theatrical exhibition.
If the movies stayed on TV and were never released theatrically, then no
Here's why this is significant. When a movie is ready for release, it is advantageous to get some audience reaction to determine how well they like the film. After all, just because the director happens to find a certain scene to be funny/dramatic/whatever doesn't mean that general audiences will. By judging how the audience reacts to a film, the producer and/or director can decide which scenes need to be cut, changed, or augmented. Now, if the movie is being put out by a major studio, this is not a problem. They just have test screenings in select cities and hire people to come in and gauge the audience's responsiveness to the film.
If you're an indie producer or director, on the other hand, that is not an option. You can't afford to test-screen your movie in "select cities." An idea that many in the indie business are warming to, though, is the concept of distributing a prerelease version of your film via the Internet. This way, diehard film fans can watch your movie and provide you with feedback, which, in the end, can help you put out a better movie. Once you make the necessary modification, you can then release the film theatrically using the budget that you do have.
IMHO, this ruling is intended to stifle independent films. The Academy has a lot of relationships with a lot of the big studios, and there is no disputing the fact that in recent years, many indie films have been a hell of a lot better than the crap that the major studios have been trowling out. The Academy is looking out for its own; it clearly does not wish to allow independent directors the ability to have their films test-screened in the same manner that their big studio counterparts do.
On the other hand, you can simply dismiss the Academy Awards as a meaningful indicator of the quality of a movie and instead rely on the opinions of objective reviewers. That's a process that seems to work pretty well.
Most hardware that can access DVDs will not allow you to even read the *encrypted* data unless you unlock it first. I'd imagine that means that you would not be able to copy a DVD without DeCSS.
.. no.
Err
If you have a DVD-ROM drive and a DVD movie handy, mount it up and examine the directory structure. DVD movies are stored on the media in UDF (Universal Disk Format) format; you can download the UDF specification from the Optical Storage Technology Association. There is a standard directory structure for all DVD-Video discs. For example, the VIDEO_TS directory contains files that contain pointers to the sectors on the media that contain the actual video streams. There is an AUDIO_TS that does the same for audio. If you're interested in specifics on the filesystem, here's a link with more information.
The point is that none of this structure is an industry secret (it's actually a widely-available standard), and nothing prevents you from reading the video or audio content on the CD. The problem is that you cannot meaningfully use it (read: play it) unless you get around the Content Scrambling System. Again, there is nothing that prevents people from doing a direct content-to-content copy of a DVD-Video disc. CSS is meant to restrict use of the content, not readability.
This is an interesting thought, but it's worth remembering that the Academy is not talking about films that are released exclusively over the Internet. Let's say that I'm an indie director/producer, and I've just finished up with a film. In order to measure the audience response to the film before I release it theatrically, I put it out on the Internet for movie fans/critics to download, view, and submit their comments. (Think of it as a peer review.) Once I get the audience reaction back and make the appropriate changes, I then release the film theatrically. What the Academy is saying is that my film is not eligible for an Oscar by virtue of the fact that I exhibited it using the Internet before it was released theatrically on film. I can understand having a separate set of awards for films that are released exclusively on the Internet, but does this make any sense?
Incidentally, the idea of using the Internet as a testbed for a movie is an idea that is catching on with many indie producers and directors. Of course, the big studios just have "test screenings" in several select cities where they show the movie and have representatives there to measure the audience's response to the movie. Obviously, independent producers cannot afford such luxuries, and even if they could, they do not have the connections they would need to arrange such test screenings. This whole ruling seems like it was designed to stifle indie movies in favor of studio movies. In a way, this is hardly surprising, since the Academy is just "looking after its own." On the other hand, since independent producers have been putting out products that have been of consistently higher quality than most of the big studio films, this is a Bad Thing for movie fans.
So what gives? Reactionary fear because of the DVD DeCSS revenue losses? .. there's a reason they're fighting so hard against anything that would enable import of $5 DVDs from less developed countries.
Keep in mind that DeCSS has absolutely nothing to do with piracy when it comes to duplicating DVDs. DVD movies are essentially just UDF v1.02 filesystems (IIRC). The content scrambling is done at the file level, not at the filesystem level. You do not need to circumvent CSS in order to duplicate a DVD. You do need to circumvent it if you wish to view the content of the DVD. The long and short of it is that despite what the MPAA claims, the DeCSS debate has nothing to do with piracy. The debate is actually about access to the content contained on a piece of media that you purchased and legally own.
names look weird unless you keep them to ISO-9660's 8.3 limits).
.. a lot of MP3s obviously have pretty long filenames!
.. and this doesn't bother me since I don't own any Macs.
That's ISO 9660 level 1. Level 2 lets you have filenames that are up to 31 characters in length. The reason for this restriction is that the Mac OS cannot currently handle filenames that are longer than this, and an industry standard is useless if it is not implementable across a wide variety of platforms. Nevertheless, the ISO 9660 implementations found in most other operating systems (i.e., Linux, Windows, etc.) happily handle filenames that are longer than this, and that's a good thing
Unfortunately, I had to manually add an extra option ("-e") to mkisofs to get it to pre-master images with the longer filenames. Sure, it breaks ISO 9660, but doesn't seem to cause any problems on any OS other than the Mac OS
When is somebody going to make a stereo component that reads ISO9660 filesystems, goes into the directory structure, assembles a list of the MP3 files in the filesystem, and then plays them? I like to burn CD-Rs full of MP3s (which amounts to about eleven hours worth of music), bring them to work, and listen to music all day with xmms (never once hearing the same song twice.) It would be nice if I could take that same CD and throw it into a MP3 stereo component and have it be able to recognize the format.
..)
Hard drives are nice, but IMHO removable media is nicer. That way you don't have to maintain a network connection between your stereo and your computer. Or better yet, do it both ways (of course, that type of design decision tends to affect the price tag
The hostility toward religion, especially Christian religions, in current society is troubling.
Sorry, but this really burns me. I'm sure you're aware that there are people in the world who are being imprisoned and even executed for expressing their religious beliefs. And yet there are those in the United States (or, more generally, in the West) who have the unmitigated gall to claim that Christians are the target of persecution here. This, quite simply, is horrendously disrespectful to people who really are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
Sure, people express hostility towards Christianity. The obvious reason why there is more hostility towards Christianity is that it is the most dominant religion! Furthermore, many outspoken Christians tend to be unfortunately outspoken. You don't see Muslims and Hindus attacking biologists and attempting to turn the clock on science education back to the Bronze Age. You don't see sites such as "www.allahhatesfags.com." Yes, I am aware that literalist creationists and Phelps-like hatemongers make up a very small percentage of those who claim to be "Christians", but certainly you must see how that one tiny brush can paint a bad image on the whole barn, particularly when those who do claim to be "mainstream" Christians are not particularly active in rebuking their more vociferous brethren.
With regards to school prayer, I wonder what the life expectancy would be for somebody who got up in front of a football stadium in South Texas and loudly proclaimed: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet." Yes, I am aware that the standard counter-argument to this is that there are very few Muslims in South Texas, and that most of the people at the game are Christians, and therefore since the majority rules, it should be okay to have an institutionalized Christian prayer before the game.
The problem with "majority rules" is the same problem with democracy in general: in and of itself, it can be a very dangerous thing. The founding fathers of America recognized this, and this is why we have a constitutional republic as our system of government. Democracy only works when it is fit into a system like this, because otherwise it degenerates to mob rule, and mob rule can quite often be very unsavory.
As an example of this, there was recently a small Southern city whose population consisted largely of Christian conservatives. It was discovered that prostitutes were hanging out downtown. How did the city council deal with this? They passed a law forbidding women from wearing shorts after 6:00 PM (because obviously, any woman who would do such a thing is a whore.) And the funny thing is that the majority of the people in the city agreed with the law. Is this the kind of situation that we need on a regular basis?
This is the whole reason we have a Constitution. It prevents things like this from taking place. The majority of the people might have agreed with the above theocratic law, but tyranny is tyranny. The Constitution establishes a framework -- a set of boundaries under which our democracy must operate. It has nothing to do with "the right to not be offended" or any other such rhetoric. The whole purpose is to prevent mob rule, sometimes referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."
I work for Dell.. I can't believe they decided to bundle their computers with shit.
Hmm. The last time I bought a Dell, it was bundled with styrofoam. Perhaps the engineers at Dell have discovered that fecal matter provides better shock absorbtion?
Novel concept, anyway.
Only a higher being could have given us a rose, a bald eagle, a rainbow, etc.
Yes, but that would then mean that the "higher being" also gave us Pauly Shore. This is direct evidence against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving.
ARTICLES ABOUT LINUX GOING MAINSTREAM BEGINNING TO GO MAINSTREAM
News Organizations Feel More Comfortable About Reporting On Open-Source OS
ATLANTA, GA (AP) - News organizations such as CNN and ABC News are beginning to warm up to the Linux operating system. Linux, which is an "open source" operating system that provides an alternative to Microsoft Windows, has been seeing gradually more media coverage over the course of the past year or so. Although the popular operating system has been in use in the industry's mainstream for quite some time now, news stories about the OS's mainstream status were considered "fringe" by major media outlets, and were generally avoided.
"A year or so ago, you would never have seen an article about how Linux has entered the mainstream," explained Steve Kinsworth, a senior editor at Brill's Content. "Articles like that were considered 'niche articles' that had a very limited readership. The majority of people would have no use for such articles, and would be better served by articles about systems such as Microsoft Windows. These days, though, everybody is jumping on the Linux mainstream reporting bandwagon. Reporting about Linux's mainstream status has jumped from fringe to mainstream. We are very excited by all this."
Leonard Shaffer, Vice-President of Corporate Egotism at Wired, echoed Kinsworth's sentiments. "The media is in love with Linux and stories about how it has gone mainstream. Just a few months ago, if you had gone into your editor's office and suggested doing an article about Linux, the response would have been 'Huh?' or 'You wanna write about what?' These days, editors and managers all over are chomping at the bit to get more coverage of mainstream Linux onto the pages of their magazine."
Not everybody shares the enthusiasm, however. Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp. and owner of the Fox News Channel, has publicly decried the coverage of the operating system. "I am deeply disturbed by the mainstreaming of coverage of Linux as mainstream," Murdoch said. "We at the Fox News Channel cater to the Christian Right and to ultra-paranoid conservatives," Murdoch explained. "We have absolutely no interest in blubbering all over some sort of leftist free-love collectivist liberal mishmash of computer code." Fox News contributor Bob Dornan agreed, calling Linux author Linus Torvalds "the anti-Christ."
Ted Turner contributed to this story.
It is a ridiculous, preposterous story, and you think that people would want some proof before they devote their life to it! What you should really do is put your faith in Jesus ..
:-)
I'm going to make the safe assumption that this irony was intentional, and take this opportunity to congratulate you on a very funny bit of satire.
PIZZA HUT AD ACCIDENTALLY SENT TO CHINESE EMBASSY
Beijing Reportedly "Furious" Over Uninvited Capitalist Intrusion
BELGRADE, SERBIA (AP) - In what the US State Department is calling an "unfortunate mistake", the Belgrade embassy of the People's Republic of China was the target for several Pizza Hut advertisements earlier this evening. Originating from a communications satellite orbiting the Earth at an altitude of several hundred miles, the advertisements had been ordered by Stanley Blyleven, Pizza Hut's vice president of marketing. The messages were received by an on-duty secretary who forwarded them to her immediate supervisor.
"We are so sorry," explained Blyleven. "We thought that we had targeted the Swedish embassy." Blyleven blamed the targeting snafu on "an outdated map that had tomato sauce smeared on it." "It was certainly not our intent to intrude on the Chinese embassy," said Blyleven. "We did not want to intentionally inform the Chinese people about our fresh, plentiful, mouth-watering toppings, our heaping pounds of zesty cheese, or our tantalizing variety of crust styles. It was a mistake; it was simply an honest mistake."
A spokesman for Chinese president Jiang Zemin stated that the incident had "upset him deeply, and could possibly represent a near-irreperable rift in US-Sino relations." State Department spokesman James Rubin had been in contact with a representative of Zemin, but little progress was made in the quest to quell the outrage in Beijing. "The Chinese government views this as a capitalist intrusion into their governmental affairs," reported Rubin. "Although we have explained several times that this was a mistake made by Pizza Hut, we feel that this incident may have been a serious setback."
President Bill Clinton appealed for calm and a mushroom/pepperoni combo with extra cheese.