...he's essentially right. OSX is the best desktop Unix available. Why replace it at all? You've got a spiffy G4. I just don't see the point. Now, if you had a G3, yeah, ok, I can see that, as OSX runs like a dog on that cpu. Yellow Dog would be a good choice there. But damn, a brand new G4? Keep the Mac system on it.
Lots of geeks seem to be lefties as well. They'll protest, tell you that they're really libertarians or whatnot, but almost all of them have been drifting left here for awhile now. Slashdot USED to be more of a libertarian bent, but that's changed.
While these are most certainly accomplished people, no doubting their genius, that doesn't prevent them from having a political agenda. And contrary to what scientists will tell you, some do have political agendas. They're human, after all. Einstein became an enthusiastic proponent of socialism at the end of his life. So, because he was a brilliant physicist, does that mean he was right about politics?
Most of the things the UCS is complaining about are political hot button issues as well as scientific ones.
Prof. Gene Spafford, who runs the CERIAS computer security institute at Purdue University, once said that Microsoft has, and I quote, "...world class security people. Unfortunately, marketing rules that company".
I've heard several other developer friends tell me that the quality of MS developers has always impressed them, that they've got really bright people working for them. One friend, who is now a Java developer, told me that Microsoft was one of the two toughest interviews he had after college. These accounts are not coming from two-week MCSE's that code in VB. These guys have computer science degrees, and are dedicated Unix/Linux users. So their comments made an impression on me. I've also heard these things elsewhere.
So simply saying "they're idiots" doesn't quite ring true. Spaf also said that the main differnce between Windows and Mac products was that Apple has a culture where, to rip off Ford here, quality is job one. He reiterated the power of the marketing corps at MS then, hinting at the pressures Marketing puts on the developers to get new and sometimes weird/useless features into the products, all with rediculous deadlines. That's the difference. Leadership from the top down. Not "idiots" in the software ranks.
I agree, we need to get people to use other browsers. But/. has been full of almost mindless cheerleading for Firefox, and mainly firefox alone. Damn, people, it's still a beta product. There are some sites that it doesn't render correctly still. How about pointing people to a STABLE alternative? Like, ummm, I don't know.....Mozilla? If they need a brand name, point them to Netscape (nope, they're not dead, contrary to reports otherwise; they're even releasing 7.2 soon, and it's basically Mozilla with a Netscape label, so you can feel good about recommending it). Hell, if you don't mind ads, there's Opera.
Sometimes we let our open-source ethic/activism overload, and forget that most other folks aren't techie geeks that like doing things such as installing betas, testing Fedora Core/Debain Unstable, etc.
No they shouldn't. The reason conservatives are mad at PBS is because they've always treated the conservative part of the country and the values they hold with contempt. And lets face it; look who holds all three branches of goverment. Look at the Red areas vs. the Blue areas. Can you seriously tell me that conservatives are a minority of the population? I would argue that there are more people right of center in America than left. So why does it make sense to ignore and/or marginalize that population? That's what PBS has been doing with a liberal tinged, elitist view. And those conservative politicians, representing ALL THOSE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS, were supposed to do nothing about it? That PBS was suprised at all that this happened shows just how out of touch they are. That they've largely cried "oppresion" and "censorship" further shows they still don't get it.
PBS has never had the support of Red america because of these attitudes. A PUBLIC network should be respresentative of the public as a whole. PBS is not.
"America had a chance to have something as brilliant and deep as the BBC"
God forbid. The Beeb is neither brilliant nor deep. They have a long history coddling tyrants (it was hard to find any criticism of Stalin on the BBC. They never fired much criticism at Saddam either), and have always been openly supportive of the Labor Party, but never waste an opportunity to stick it to the Tories. Again, with a publicly funded network, this is a recipe for hostility from a very large chunk of your hoped-for audience.
During the Iraq war, Royal Navy ships more or less banned the BBC from their decks, because British sailors were tired of the unrelenting left-slanted news.
"That NPR and PBS aren't is the fault of the conservatives who seem hell bent on funding idiots like Rupert Murdoch and their "news.""
Again, you don't seem to understand. The reason why Fox News has become such a success (and Rush Limbaugh as well) is that Red states felt they didn't have an alternative to left-slanted news (and even Peter Jennings now admits most journalists are liberals). So when Fox came along, it took off like gangbusters. No conspiracy here, just pent up demand exploding on newly available supply.
Look, PBS does have some quality, non-partisan shows. The science stuff is a good example. And those shows will now suffer from lack of audience because of competition from cable. But PBS has no one to blame but themselves for driving potential viewers to their cable competitors. Had they tried to be, ahem, fair and balanced, they might have a bigger audience and more public support. Instead, they've made dedicated enemies that want to wipe them out.
"# Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are actually harmful.) # Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern."
When have we NOT held that public nudity and swearing in public are a bad thing? Especially on the broadcast airwaves? When have we EVER allowed it?
"# Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack. # Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is ba, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with."
One, what the fuck does either of these issues have to do with this show? And two, when has the press ever been NOT free to question the adequecy of national security, except during wartime? We're in a war right now (whether some people want to admit it or not), and none one has ever been censored for questioning national security. No press freedoms have been curtailed at ALL, unlike WW II, where official censors got to look at everything the press did before it was published.
And not allowed to speak ill of the power structure? What??? Michael Moore's movie is proof that's bullshit. And the news networks don't seem to have any problem criticizing officials, elected and otherwise.
"sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once."
You can pine for a never-existant utopia all you want, but for the most part, we have as much freedom as we've ever had. With the exceptions of some things like the DMCA, tell me what freedom's we've lost that used to be written in law? Even the Patriot Act doesn't affect the vast majority of people in this country.
PBS took prudent steps to obey the law and accepted public standards (which are far more lax now than they've ever been). There's no chilling effect here, just the whine of some people that want to scream oppression and censorship to get publicity.
Cheney's outburst was neither half-thought or irrational; Patrick Leahy has deserved that "fuck you" for a long time now. He's a dick, and I'm glad the veep did it.
Emotional, yeah, sure.
But it was NOT broadcast on television. As much as I admire Richard Dryfuss, he's full of shit. This isn't censorship. Thankfully, most people seem to be recognizing that, and are calling him on it.
Nope. People will avoid it in droves. And it's pointless anyway. Berman, genital wart on the penis of humanity that he is, doesn't give a shit about continuity. He'll show the Romulans anyway.
I've given up on Trek. Berman has totally and completely ruined it. Sometimes I think he's made it his life's mission to totally fuck up Star Trek to an unrepairable state. He's made the past series meaningless, rewriting things as they go along. He either doesn't know, or likely doesn't care that the fans want someone that respects the Star Trek universe, and wants continuity. He seems almost to DESPISE the notion of continuity. I dread the notion that this asshat is going to monkey with ST's past, yet again, almost assuredly with no regard to details of past episodes. Maybe Paramount really hates Trek, and is fervently trying to kill it off. The last couple of movies and series sure point to this.
"What the copyright holder owns is the copyright itself, not any particular copy of a work or the medium that it's contained on."
True so far.
"If the owner of the copy infringes on the copyright, he has violated the terms of the lien. This makes copyright infringement more akin to trespassing than to theft."
Here's where I have to dispute you. While violating copyright is not considered a physical theft, such as breaking into your car and stealing your stereo, it IS still considered a FORM a theft. Rather than comparing it to tresspassing, the closest correct comparison would be "theft of service"; like perhaps, parking in a commercial parking lot, and then skipping without paying (I use this one because I worked in a parking lot throughout college, and had some expierience here. When people skipped or cheated their way out, we'd get their tag, report and prosecute them). Some people, because they disagree with copyright laws, tend to rationalize that there's really no theft involved at all, but that's not true. When you're taking it without properly paying for it, theft is still being comitted, but as I said, it's more of a theft of service than physical theft.
Sorry, whatever they touch, whether created in-house, or purchased in a takeover, always turns out bad, security-wise. It does so not because they're evil, but because marketing rules that company, and security will always be last-kid-picked at the playground.
That was YOUR choice. You volunteered to do those things, and at a startup, it was recognized and appreciated. This guy's boss is just cheap. It's more of the same old mentality: Let's squeeze as much profit and productivity from these people as we can without spending any money on them. And if they balk, hint at layoffs.
He may not have any choice, but his piece of mind will be greatly increased if he can find another job with reasonable superiors. The ones he has now are making unreasonable demands at his fiscal expense.
" by your line of reasoning, my lung provide a symbiotic benefit to my heart."
Your lung is a part and parcel of your body, literally sprung from your DNA. Bactieria are not. They are completely dependant on you, but are not truly part of you. You can kill off your bactieria and live. You can't kill off your lungs and live (without artificial breathing assistance).
Teaching kids to share doesn't mean teaching them to share EVERYTHING.
And what's with the Bully thing? Bullies beat up other kids, usually for the feeling of power it gives them. I can never recall a kid being labled a bully because of all things, he wouldn't share his juicebox. That kid is saying "Fuck you, YOU share YOUR juicebox. This one's mine". Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with that. Little Timmy says keep me out of your P2P argument. I'll keep my juicebox AND download shit from Kazaa in 10 years.
Branding still means something. I'm installing Netscape Navigator 7.1 on our stations, because it's a recognizable brand name, and more readily acceptable than say, Mozilla, even though they're essentially the same product. I get IE out, and a Gecko based browser in, which is the most important thing.
I understand the enthusiasm here for Firebird, but it's still essentially a beta product. Netscape/Mozilla has always rendered pages for me correctly, so I'M more comfortable with that option as well. Yes, the Feds warning against IE helps, but if you're an IT manager or sysadmin, it's still your rep on the line when something doesn't work right. The fact that Netscape appears to have gotten a reprieve (7.2 is coming out soon) helps matters. Businesses and government organizations like to play it safe. They don't want to hear beta or open source. They want to hear a trusted brand name. When that brand name uses open source, all the better for you the technology implementer.
Social and gregarious is not how I'd describe most (not all) linux people. From my own expierience, a lot tend to be loners, non-social, even painfully shy. As I said, there are exceptions, but there's a reason Linux users are called "geeks". I couldn't describe my lug as "raucous". Maybe it's a cultural thing between the UK and the US, but I'd LIKE to go to a raucous lug. Maybe I just need to visit the UK...
"The real good stuff comes in the form of a clean and fast interface..."
Ummm, clean yes, fast no. It's a buggy piece of shit so far, and I'm not the only one that's noticed. It times out a LOT, and I'm already tired of the "Oops, there's been an error, try again in 30 seconds" messages. And I get this from multiple locations, and I'm getting similar reports from other friends that use it.
It may eventually turn out to be the greatest thing sinced sliced white bread, but it's got a long way to go before the bugs are fixed. I know it's a beta, but I'm dissapointed in the quality at this point.
This is just another bit of disgusting pro-Bush propoganda. This is just a virtual way of oiling the jaws of Amerika's disgusting war machine. What, you're not satisfied that you've slaughtered 30,000 innocents? Now you use disgusting Orwellian methods to recruit brain-dead Amerikan teenagers to swell the ranks of your Amerikan Wermacht! Fuck you AND your propoganda tools!
Now, see how silly that sounds? Welcome to Slashdot, 2004. Please mod me +5 automatically. I've posted the requisite diatribes agaisnt A)Bush, B)the war, and C)the military. This makes me edgy and hackerish. And thus cool. And thus worthy of your mod points.
They're entertainers. Revolution was never their intent. MONEY is their intent. All rock bands want to get rich and famous once they get signed. If they can flaunt their politics and change the world along the way, hey, that's cool. But those checks had better keep coming. Anyone that thinks that this isn't the aim of almost all bands from the start are fools. And please, use John Lennon as an example. Paul McCartney has said that during songwriting, Lennon would say things like "Cool, I've got a boat, now let's write a Pool" when penning new songs.
There's no such thing as a band "selling out". That's naive bullshit. They're an entertainment act, created to make lots of money. Period. They preach the revolution, because they know you guys will pony up your cash and buy into it. It sells records.
To be a geek is essentially having most of your fun with your mind, as opposed to jocks having most fun with their bodies via sport. It's a sad, small mind that limits itself to video games, sci-fi, and anything with a microchip. Try pushing yourself away from that keyboard for a minute, and pick up a book. Not an ebook, not an online book, but an honest to God paper-paged book. Get away from computers for five minutes and start enriching yourself with some literature, history, philosophy, science, and mathematics.
I'd LIKE to see more stories like this. I love Slashdot, but nothing but video games/computers/sci-fi is thin gruel at times, and I have to go to other sites to satisfy my need for non-techie subjects.
Besides, walking away from the computer and relaxing with a book recharges me. Give it a try sometime.
"Does it really matter when you have a functionally iliterate President with a Harvard MBA?"
What an absolute crock of shit. Bush may not be a genius by any means, and he's not particularly elegant, but saying the guy can't read? Where did you get this bit of insight? Any President, whether he likes it or not, has a lot to read, mostly intelligence summaries. Bush reads the Bible most nights, and plenty of smart, accomplished people aren't particularly elegant. St. Augustine was called "The Ox" by his fellow seminary students, because he was big and quiet, and when he did speak, it didn't set the world on fire. Again, I'm not saying Bush is the sharpest tack on the board, but your little cutdown would almost be at home on an elementary school playground.
Slashdot Mirror
...he's essentially right. OSX is the best desktop Unix available. Why replace it at all? You've got a spiffy G4. I just don't see the point. Now, if you had a G3, yeah, ok, I can see that, as OSX runs like a dog on that cpu. Yellow Dog would be a good choice there. But damn, a brand new G4? Keep the Mac system on it.
Lots of geeks seem to be lefties as well. They'll protest, tell you that they're really libertarians or whatnot, but almost all of them have been drifting left here for awhile now. Slashdot USED to be more of a libertarian bent, but that's changed.
While these are most certainly accomplished people, no doubting their genius, that doesn't prevent them from having a political agenda. And contrary to what scientists will tell you, some do have political agendas. They're human, after all. Einstein became an enthusiastic proponent of socialism at the end of his life. So, because he was a brilliant physicist, does that mean he was right about politics?
Most of the things the UCS is complaining about are political hot button issues as well as scientific ones.
Prof. Gene Spafford, who runs the CERIAS computer security institute at Purdue University, once said that Microsoft has, and I quote, "...world class security people. Unfortunately, marketing rules that company".
I've heard several other developer friends tell me that the quality of MS developers has always impressed them, that they've got really bright people working for them. One friend, who is now a Java developer, told me that Microsoft was one of the two toughest interviews he had after college. These accounts are not coming from two-week MCSE's that code in VB. These guys have computer science degrees, and are dedicated Unix/Linux users. So their comments made an impression on me. I've also heard these things elsewhere.
So simply saying "they're idiots" doesn't quite ring true. Spaf also said that the main differnce between Windows and Mac products was that Apple has a culture where, to rip off Ford here, quality is job one. He reiterated the power of the marketing corps at MS then, hinting at the pressures Marketing puts on the developers to get new and sometimes weird/useless features into the products, all with rediculous deadlines. That's the difference. Leadership from the top down. Not "idiots" in the software ranks.
I agree, we need to get people to use other browsers. But /. has been full of almost mindless cheerleading for Firefox, and mainly firefox alone. Damn, people, it's still a beta product. There are some sites that it doesn't render correctly still. How about pointing people to a STABLE alternative? Like, ummm, I don't know.....Mozilla? If they need a brand name, point them to Netscape (nope, they're not dead, contrary to reports otherwise; they're even releasing 7.2 soon, and it's basically Mozilla with a Netscape label, so you can feel good about recommending it). Hell, if you don't mind ads, there's Opera.
Sometimes we let our open-source ethic/activism overload, and forget that most other folks aren't techie geeks that like doing things such as installing betas, testing Fedora Core/Debain Unstable, etc.
"If PBS is mad at conservatives, it should be"
No they shouldn't. The reason conservatives are mad at PBS is because they've always treated the conservative part of the country and the values they hold with contempt. And lets face it; look who holds all three branches of goverment. Look at the Red areas vs. the Blue areas. Can you seriously tell me that conservatives are a minority of the population? I would argue that there are more people right of center in America than left. So why does it make sense to ignore and/or marginalize that population? That's what PBS has been doing with a liberal tinged, elitist view. And those conservative politicians, representing ALL THOSE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS, were supposed to do nothing about it? That PBS was suprised at all that this happened shows just how out of touch they are. That they've largely cried "oppresion" and "censorship" further shows they still don't get it.
PBS has never had the support of Red america because of these attitudes. A PUBLIC network should be respresentative of the public as a whole. PBS is not.
"America had a chance to have something as brilliant and deep as the BBC"
God forbid.
The Beeb is neither brilliant nor deep. They have a long history coddling tyrants (it was hard to find any criticism of Stalin on the BBC. They never fired much criticism at Saddam either), and have always been openly supportive of the Labor Party, but never waste an opportunity to stick it to the Tories. Again, with a publicly funded network, this is a recipe for hostility from a very large chunk of your hoped-for audience.
During the Iraq war, Royal Navy ships more or less banned the BBC from their decks, because British sailors were tired of the unrelenting left-slanted news.
"That NPR and PBS aren't is the fault of the conservatives who seem hell bent on funding idiots like Rupert Murdoch and their "news.""
Again, you don't seem to understand. The reason why Fox News has become such a success (and Rush Limbaugh as well) is that Red states felt they didn't have an alternative to left-slanted news (and even Peter Jennings now admits most journalists are liberals). So when Fox came along, it took off like gangbusters. No conspiracy here, just pent up demand exploding on newly available supply.
Look, PBS does have some quality, non-partisan shows. The science stuff is a good example. And those shows will now suffer from lack of audience because of competition from cable. But PBS has no one to blame but themselves for driving potential viewers to their cable competitors. Had they tried to be, ahem, fair and balanced, they might have a bigger audience and more public support. Instead, they've made dedicated enemies that want to wipe them out.
"# Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are actually harmful.)
# Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern."
When have we NOT held that public nudity and swearing in public are a bad thing? Especially on the broadcast airwaves? When have we EVER allowed it?
"# Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack.
# Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is ba, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with."
One, what the fuck does either of these issues have to do with this show? And two, when has the press ever been NOT free to question the adequecy of national security, except during wartime? We're in a war right now (whether some people want to admit it or not), and none one has ever been censored for questioning national security. No press freedoms have been curtailed at ALL, unlike WW II, where official censors got to look at everything the press did before it was published.
And not allowed to speak ill of the power structure? What??? Michael Moore's movie is proof that's bullshit. And the news networks don't seem to have any problem criticizing officials, elected and otherwise.
"sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once."
You can pine for a never-existant utopia all you want, but for the most part, we have as much freedom as we've ever had. With the exceptions of some things like the DMCA, tell me what freedom's we've lost that used to be written in law? Even the Patriot Act doesn't affect the vast majority of people in this country.
PBS took prudent steps to obey the law and accepted public standards (which are far more lax now than they've ever been). There's no chilling effect here, just the whine of some people that want to scream oppression and censorship to get publicity.
Cheney's outburst was neither half-thought or irrational; Patrick Leahy has deserved that "fuck you" for a long time now. He's a dick, and I'm glad the veep did it.
Emotional, yeah, sure.
But it was NOT broadcast on television. As much as I admire Richard Dryfuss, he's full of shit. This isn't censorship. Thankfully, most people seem to be recognizing that, and are calling him on it.
He is indeed. He's largely responsible for the dreck the whole franchise has become.
Das Starship?
Nope. People will avoid it in droves. And it's pointless anyway. Berman, genital wart on the penis of humanity that he is, doesn't give a shit about continuity. He'll show the Romulans anyway.
I've given up on Trek. Berman has totally and completely ruined it. Sometimes I think he's made it his life's mission to totally fuck up Star Trek to an unrepairable state. He's made the past series meaningless, rewriting things as they go along. He either doesn't know, or likely doesn't care that the fans want someone that respects the Star Trek universe, and wants continuity. He seems almost to DESPISE the notion of continuity. I dread the notion that this asshat is going to monkey with ST's past, yet again, almost assuredly with no regard to details of past episodes. Maybe Paramount really hates Trek, and is fervently trying to kill it off. The last couple of movies and series sure point to this.
"What the copyright holder owns is the copyright itself, not any particular copy of a work or the medium that it's contained on."
True so far.
"If the owner of the copy infringes on the copyright, he has violated the terms of the lien. This makes copyright infringement more akin to trespassing than to theft."
Here's where I have to dispute you. While violating copyright is not considered a physical theft, such as breaking into your car and stealing your stereo, it IS still considered a FORM a theft. Rather than comparing it to tresspassing, the closest correct comparison would be "theft of service"; like perhaps, parking in a commercial parking lot, and then skipping without paying (I use this one because I worked in a parking lot throughout college, and had some expierience here. When people skipped or cheated their way out, we'd get their tag, report and prosecute them). Some people, because they disagree with copyright laws, tend to rationalize that there's really no theft involved at all, but that's not true. When you're taking it without properly paying for it, theft is still being comitted, but as I said, it's more of a theft of service than physical theft.
Point is, it's still a FORM of theft.
Sorry, whatever they touch, whether created in-house, or purchased in a takeover, always turns out bad, security-wise. It does so not because they're evil, but because marketing rules that company, and security will always be last-kid-picked at the playground.
That was YOUR choice. You volunteered to do those things, and at a startup, it was recognized and appreciated. This guy's boss is just cheap. It's more of the same old mentality: Let's squeeze as much profit and productivity from these people as we can without spending any money on them. And if they balk, hint at layoffs.
He may not have any choice, but his piece of mind will be greatly increased if he can find another job with reasonable superiors. The ones he has now are making unreasonable demands at his fiscal expense.
" by your line of reasoning, my lung provide a symbiotic benefit to my heart."
Your lung is a part and parcel of your body, literally sprung from your DNA. Bactieria are not. They are completely dependant on you, but are not truly part of you. You can kill off your bactieria and live. You can't kill off your lungs and live (without artificial breathing assistance).
Teaching kids to share doesn't mean teaching them to share EVERYTHING.
And what's with the Bully thing? Bullies beat up other kids, usually for the feeling of power it gives them. I can never recall a kid being labled a bully because of all things, he wouldn't share his juicebox. That kid is saying "Fuck you, YOU share YOUR juicebox. This one's mine". Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with that. Little Timmy says keep me out of your P2P argument. I'll keep my juicebox AND download shit from Kazaa in 10 years.
It's a dick.
And now we're posting stories on giant penis flowers on Slashdot?
Branding still means something. I'm installing Netscape Navigator 7.1 on our stations, because it's a recognizable brand name, and more readily acceptable than say, Mozilla, even though they're essentially the same product. I get IE out, and a Gecko based browser in, which is the most important thing.
I understand the enthusiasm here for Firebird, but it's still essentially a beta product. Netscape/Mozilla has always rendered pages for me correctly, so I'M more comfortable with that option as well. Yes, the Feds warning against IE helps, but if you're an IT manager or sysadmin, it's still your rep on the line when something doesn't work right. The fact that Netscape appears to have gotten a reprieve (7.2 is coming out soon) helps matters. Businesses and government organizations like to play it safe. They don't want to hear beta or open source. They want to hear a trusted brand name. When that brand name uses open source, all the better for you the technology implementer.
Social and gregarious is not how I'd describe most (not all) linux people. From my own expierience, a lot tend to be loners, non-social, even painfully shy. As I said, there are exceptions, but there's a reason Linux users are called "geeks". I couldn't describe my lug as "raucous". Maybe it's a cultural thing between the UK and the US, but I'd LIKE to go to a raucous lug. Maybe I just need to visit the UK...
"Has anyone else had a situation where the danger of technology loosing you business outweigh the efficiencies gained?"
It was called Windows...
"The real good stuff comes in the form of a clean and fast interface..."
Ummm, clean yes, fast no. It's a buggy piece of shit so far, and I'm not the only one that's noticed. It times out a LOT, and I'm already tired of the "Oops, there's been an error, try again in 30 seconds" messages. And I get this from multiple locations, and I'm getting similar reports from other friends that use it.
It may eventually turn out to be the greatest thing sinced sliced white bread, but it's got a long way to go before the bugs are fixed. I know it's a beta, but I'm dissapointed in the quality at this point.
This is just another bit of disgusting pro-Bush propoganda. This is just a virtual way of oiling the jaws of Amerika's disgusting war machine. What, you're not satisfied that you've slaughtered 30,000 innocents? Now you use disgusting Orwellian methods to recruit brain-dead Amerikan teenagers to swell the ranks of your Amerikan Wermacht! Fuck you AND your propoganda tools!
Now, see how silly that sounds? Welcome to Slashdot, 2004. Please mod me +5 automatically. I've posted the requisite diatribes agaisnt A)Bush, B)the war, and C)the military. This makes me edgy and hackerish. And thus cool. And thus worthy of your mod points.
Did I say how cool Michael Moore is?
They're entertainers. Revolution was never their intent. MONEY is their intent. All rock bands want to get rich and famous once they get signed. If they can flaunt their politics and change the world along the way, hey, that's cool. But those checks had better keep coming. Anyone that thinks that this isn't the aim of almost all bands from the start are fools. And please, use John Lennon as an example. Paul McCartney has said that during songwriting, Lennon would say things like "Cool, I've got a boat, now let's write a Pool" when penning new songs.
There's no such thing as a band "selling out". That's naive bullshit. They're an entertainment act, created to make lots of money. Period. They preach the revolution, because they know you guys will pony up your cash and buy into it. It sells records.
To be a geek is essentially having most of your fun with your mind, as opposed to jocks having most fun with their bodies via sport. It's a sad, small mind that limits itself to video games, sci-fi, and anything with a microchip. Try pushing yourself away from that keyboard for a minute, and pick up a book. Not an ebook, not an online book, but an honest to God paper-paged book. Get away from computers for five minutes and start enriching yourself with some literature, history, philosophy, science, and mathematics.
I'd LIKE to see more stories like this. I love Slashdot, but nothing but video games/computers/sci-fi is thin gruel at times, and I have to go to other sites to satisfy my need for non-techie subjects.
Besides, walking away from the computer and relaxing with a book recharges me. Give it a try sometime.
Because if it can, you've pulled it off.
"Does it really matter when you have a functionally iliterate President with a Harvard MBA?"
What an absolute crock of shit. Bush may not be a genius by any means, and he's not particularly elegant, but saying the guy can't read? Where did you get this bit of insight? Any President, whether he likes it or not, has a lot to read, mostly intelligence summaries. Bush reads the Bible most nights, and plenty of smart, accomplished people aren't particularly elegant. St. Augustine was called "The Ox" by his fellow seminary students, because he was big and quiet, and when he did speak, it didn't set the world on fire. Again, I'm not saying Bush is the sharpest tack on the board, but your little cutdown would almost be at home on an elementary school playground.