the question is, why do you think that such a villainous government would wait for a stupid law to sift the internet? either the government acts virtuously, or it doesn't. currently, your operating assumption about how the government acts has contradictory characteristics: on one hand, you expect a law to be passed, and then suddenly every governmental official will behave unerringly to the letter of that law. on the other hand, you expect the government to go out and rape your rights in secret no matter what. it's either one or the other as a basis for your opinion. your opinion can't be valid if it is base don a characterization of the government which is contradictory in the same scenario
you can't use proof of the government doing sneaky evil things to compel a law... that a sneaky evil government will somehow respect? its absurd of you. the law does not offer protection from what you fear, so why do you spend your time focusing on the importance of a bulwark of protection that offers no real protection from what you fear?
no law will compel the virtue that you seek, no law is protection from what they can and cannot do. if your snail mail was protected by law from snooping, do you think that law would stop them from snooping anyway if they wanted to? why do you think it is any different with the internet? why do you expect a flimsy law to compel unvirtuous people to be virtuous?
there is no model of the internet where you are wrapped in a magic tcp/ip bubblewrap cloak of protection from government snooping
it's not about the the law. you have a fundamental misunderstanding about your privacy and the technology involved. once you understand how the internet works, you wouldn't expect absurd things like "go ahead and snoop, but just not on me"
you believe a government that harasses people just for exercising their democratic rights would wait for a law to spy on you?
why do you trust the government to behave so upstanding and forthright on one hand, and then expect nothing from them but fascist harassment... all in the same thought?
fix your impression of the government in one of the two modes you present to me in your statements above:
1. the government obeys the letter of the law all of the time, it is always well-behaved 2. the government wants to harass you for ideological reasons and exercising your democratic rights
whichever operating assumption you pick, you reach 1 of 2 conclusions:
1. the government is well-behaved. therefore, that they are privy to all internet communiction (they already are) doesn't bother me, they won't behave badly with that info 2. the government is fascist. therefore, it doesn't matter what laws exist, they will do whatever the hell they want anyway and rape my freedoms
you can't have it both ways friend. either the government is well-behaved, or it isn't. you can't expect good behavior (they will respect my rights) at the same time you expect bad behavior (they will rape my rights). it's one or the other
where you will go searching for information about xyz, and no one out there will have any record of your search?
i'm not talking about government policy here, i'm talking about basic understanding of the technology: don't you think it is rather absurd of you to expect anonymity from a system that is fundamentally nothing but open packets traversing random nodes?
once you accept the notion of the complete lack of anonymity on the internet, why do you expect government policy to suddenly come in, and not only vanquish the fundamental truths of the technology of the internet, but also to suddenly behave in a virtuous way that no government has ever behaved in?
protect your own privacy. to depend upon others to protect your privacy for you is insanity. you want a government, a GOVERNMENT, to value your privacy more than you value your own privacy yourself (because you rely on others to protect your privacy for you). its an absurd position
is this attitude on slashdot: shocked, shocked i tell you, that a governmental organization is not going to protect my information for me
encrypt if you don't want it snooped on. if it goes out on the wire, it is prone to being intercepted and snooped on, by the government or someone else. you realize that, right? so where is all the shock and amazement coming from that a government is doing what governments always do?
i'm not saying you don't have a right to privacy. i'm saying you are absurd if you rely on a government organization to protect your privacy for you. regardless of the law. YOU need to protect your privacy. you can't expect the government to do that competently, regardless of the law. and then, in a forum populated with a bunch of people supposedly experienced enough with the subject matter, to come from this position of complete naivete on the subject?
all i am saying is that its just kind of disingenuous for a lot of you, who to start from the default position of healthy distrust of government... to suddenly express shock and amazement at a government trying to snoop on you. this is a new concept to you? you're not jaded and cynical at this point, as you SHOULD be on the subject matter of governments and snooping if you have any awareness of the subject matter? folks: your shock and amazement is only possible if massive trust in government is your default position. you see the absurdity in that, right?
"omg! my government wants to spy on me? the idea never occured to me!"
that's how he does it: you can't lose money backing a money losing film made by uwe boll. he basically has exploited a financial loop hole that the german goverment instituted in a well-meaning way to get german movies made, but instead their law got raped by a troll called boll making bad non-german movies based on video games
because of comments like yours. no, really: the first rule of public relations is that there is no such thing as bad public relations. he gets his name out there. he is now riding on his notoreity. hated and vilified, but his name still gets out there. that gets him interest. really
want to never hear of another uwe boll movie again? stop mentioning him. i'm serious
and that online petition? guaranteed to wind up creating this, from two weeks ago:
one of my first jobs in life, in high school, consisted of going to the local town hall, typing up the records of the week's real estate transactions on the model 100, and then relaying it back to the local paper over a 300 bps modem (also self-contained, rather than needing those rubbery headset couplers i remember from the time)
i remember marvelling at the time how high tech my job was! (that, and how many real estate transactions were made for a $1)
The Internet has a number of plays out there for self-distribution and self-promotion. A lot of these avenues are relatively fresh, so it is hard to tell, but by your judgment, are there any self-promotion or self-distribution avenues that are absolutely must-have for an indie movie maker? I'm thinking perhaps of things like the Withoutabox system, or Massify.
Is it prudent to publish on YouTube before making any other distribution deals to get the word out? Or does this put you in an unattractive bargaining position with potential distributors, online or off, such that your content is already out there, even though in lo-res quality?
As for "And who knows? Maybe NEHST will finance your next movie." see my site.;-)
why are signatures supposed to have represented security, in any context, at any time period in the past?
it's just a formality, a minor road block. it's not anything remotely secure, but it represents a tangible personalization. it's psychological more than it is security: making your personal mark on a deal
for that psychological reason, the signature will never go away. but nor should anyone have ever thought of them as a security feature in the first place. they are trivial to defeat, and always have been trivial to defeat. all you need is one copy of someone's signature and 15 minutes of patience and practice and anyone with a pen and a writing hand can copy your signature good enough to fool a third party
a white picket fence won't stop someone committed to getting in your yard either. but is that a reason to take down your fence? or upgrade to 10 foot chain link with barbed wire? no: you're simply thinking about the value of a white picket fence in the wrong context
the problem is not with the security questions surrounding a written signature, the problem is in ever thinking of them in a security context. it's a psychological and personalization context question, the use, and continued use, for a long time to come, of the written signature
it was meant as a stupid joke. there is nothing informative about my post at all. toshiba is NOT making a decepticon called xray
so i find myself in the interesting predicament of asking someone to mod down my own post in the interest of honesty. i've been misunderstood. or at least mod me funny instead?
toshiba is indeed creating a new DVD player, yes, this is true. and indeed, the DVD player they are making will not be blu-ray... it will be x-ray, a decepticon character for the upcoming transformers 2 movie. its gimmicky product placement
so everyone calm down, this is merely a movie technology villain, not a villain of movie technology. i mean yes, it is a technology villain from a movie, not a villainous movie tech, i mean... oh forget it
but it is also solved by genetic variation. the story is a little hysterical, as african varieties are also genetically different enough to resist the new cavendish-hungry fungus. not that the african varieties can't be attacked, but the emphasis is on african VARIETIES: more genetic variation means more resistance to the weakness of monoculture
"It's based on an old Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, and the battle between light and darkness."
the battle between light and darkness IS an old persian religion, but zoroastrianism (another old persian religion) is not the religion in question. they mean manichaeism
the monotheistic religions hold that there is one dominant good power. the manichaeans meanwhile were dualists: they believed the forces of good and evil are evenly matched
it was a lake after all. i figured a group of fanatical scientists, so hell bent on getting a catamaran to an isolated siberian lake they hired gangs of locals to backbreakingly carry the thing over the tundra for hundreds of miles before the short warm period was over, resulting in the deaths of dozens due to dysentry, resulting in revolts from the workers in the middle of nowhere, driving the fantatical scientists mad with desperation
In his autobiographical film Portrait Werner Herzog, Herzog has stated that the film's spectacular production was partly inspired by the engineering feats of ancient standing stones. The film was an incredible ordeal, and famously involved moving a 320-ton steamship over a hill without the use of special effects. Herzog believes that no one has ever performed a similar feat in history, and likely never will again, calling himself "Conquistador of the Useless".[4] Scenes were also shot onboard the ship while it crashed through rapids, injuring three of the six people involved in the filming. Two full-size ships were created for the making of the film.[citation needed]
The casting of the film was also quite difficult. Jason Robards was originally cast in the title role, but he became ill and was forced to leave. Herzog then considered casting Jack Nicholson, and even playing Fitzcarraldo himself, before Klaus Kinski accepted the role. By that point, forty percent of shooting was complete and Herzog insisted on a total reshoot with Kinski. Mick Jagger was originally cast as Fitzcarraldo's assistant Wilbur, but his shooting schedule expired and he departed to tour with the Rolling Stones. Herzog dropped Jagger's character from the script and reshot the film from the beginning. Though none of the major cast members spoke English natively, the original soundtrack was recorded in English, as it was the only language common to the lead actors.[citation needed]
Klaus Kinski himself was a major source of tension, as he fought with Herzog and other members of the crew and greatly upset the native extras. In his documentary My Best Fiend, Herzog says that one of the native chiefs offered to murder Kinski for him, but that he declined because he needed Kinski to complete filming.
Les Blank's documentary Burden of Dreams, about the production of the film, documents these many hardships. Blank's footage, which also appears in Herzog's Portrait Werner Herzog and My Best Fiend contains some of the only surviving footage of Robards and Jagger in Fitzcarraldo and many scenes documenting the ship's journey over the mountain, along with several episodes of Kinski's raving.
but then you go and ruin all my beautiful cinematic mental imagery of the movie "tunguska: the all consuming obsession"... by pointing out its just a spellchecker failure
(i'm sorry, i could be more polite, but you're really so deluded there is no other polite way to address you than moron):
human nature is a static unchanging condition. you do not change human nature. instead, human nature changes and destroys your naive ignorant wishful ideology. do you understand how that works? you do not skateboard into a brickwall and wishfully think the brickwall will just disappear as you approach. no, you hit the brickwall, then you fall down. in case the analogy is too much for you: human nature=brick wall. your ideology=skateboarder. apparently i have to hold your hand on these kinds of comparisons
your ideology must conform to human nature in order to be successful. you cannot form your ideology IN WILLFUL DDISOBEYANCE OF HUMAN NATURE AND EXPECT ANYTHING TO WORK. based on hoping people will suddenly start behaving in ways no group of human beings has ever behaved in 1 million years of our existence, in any culture, in any time period. understand? is that too complicated a concept for you? moron?
reference: communism. if you want more wikipedia references tro start your stunning edumacation on human nature, try, oh, any utopian society set up anywhere in the world over the last 500 years, started by the same clueless wishful naive thinkers like you. and then follow the results
Slashdot Mirror
the question is, why do you think that such a villainous government would wait for a stupid law to sift the internet? either the government acts virtuously, or it doesn't. currently, your operating assumption about how the government acts has contradictory characteristics: on one hand, you expect a law to be passed, and then suddenly every governmental official will behave unerringly to the letter of that law. on the other hand, you expect the government to go out and rape your rights in secret no matter what. it's either one or the other as a basis for your opinion. your opinion can't be valid if it is base don a characterization of the government which is contradictory in the same scenario
you can't use proof of the government doing sneaky evil things to compel a law... that a sneaky evil government will somehow respect? its absurd of you. the law does not offer protection from what you fear, so why do you spend your time focusing on the importance of a bulwark of protection that offers no real protection from what you fear?
no law will compel the virtue that you seek, no law is protection from what they can and cannot do. if your snail mail was protected by law from snooping, do you think that law would stop them from snooping anyway if they wanted to? why do you think it is any different with the internet? why do you expect a flimsy law to compel unvirtuous people to be virtuous?
it either snoops or it doesn't
there is no model of the internet where you are wrapped in a magic tcp/ip bubblewrap cloak of protection from government snooping
it's not about the the law. you have a fundamental misunderstanding about your privacy and the technology involved. once you understand how the internet works, you wouldn't expect absurd things like "go ahead and snoop, but just not on me"
you believe a government that harasses people just for exercising their democratic rights would wait for a law to spy on you?
why do you trust the government to behave so upstanding and forthright on one hand, and then expect nothing from them but fascist harassment... all in the same thought?
fix your impression of the government in one of the two modes you present to me in your statements above:
1. the government obeys the letter of the law all of the time, it is always well-behaved
2. the government wants to harass you for ideological reasons and exercising your democratic rights
whichever operating assumption you pick, you reach 1 of 2 conclusions:
1. the government is well-behaved. therefore, that they are privy to all internet communiction (they already are) doesn't bother me, they won't behave badly with that info
2. the government is fascist. therefore, it doesn't matter what laws exist, they will do whatever the hell they want anyway and rape my freedoms
you can't have it both ways friend. either the government is well-behaved, or it isn't. you can't expect good behavior (they will respect my rights) at the same time you expect bad behavior (they will rape my rights). it's one or the other
where you will go searching for information about xyz, and no one out there will have any record of your search?
i'm not talking about government policy here, i'm talking about basic understanding of the technology: don't you think it is rather absurd of you to expect anonymity from a system that is fundamentally nothing but open packets traversing random nodes?
once you accept the notion of the complete lack of anonymity on the internet, why do you expect government policy to suddenly come in, and not only vanquish the fundamental truths of the technology of the internet, but also to suddenly behave in a virtuous way that no government has ever behaved in?
protect your own privacy. to depend upon others to protect your privacy for you is insanity. you want a government, a GOVERNMENT, to value your privacy more than you value your own privacy yourself (because you rely on others to protect your privacy for you). its an absurd position
is this attitude on slashdot: shocked, shocked i tell you, that a governmental organization is not going to protect my information for me
encrypt if you don't want it snooped on. if it goes out on the wire, it is prone to being intercepted and snooped on, by the government or someone else. you realize that, right? so where is all the shock and amazement coming from that a government is doing what governments always do?
i'm not saying you don't have a right to privacy. i'm saying you are absurd if you rely on a government organization to protect your privacy for you. regardless of the law. YOU need to protect your privacy. you can't expect the government to do that competently, regardless of the law. and then, in a forum populated with a bunch of people supposedly experienced enough with the subject matter, to come from this position of complete naivete on the subject?
all i am saying is that its just kind of disingenuous for a lot of you, who to start from the default position of healthy distrust of government... to suddenly express shock and amazement at a government trying to snoop on you. this is a new concept to you? you're not jaded and cynical at this point, as you SHOULD be on the subject matter of governments and snooping if you have any awareness of the subject matter? folks: your shock and amazement is only possible if massive trust in government is your default position. you see the absurdity in that, right?
"omg! my government wants to spy on me? the idea never occured to me!"
really?
Don't be so gullible, McFly. Got the place fixed up nice-o, McFly.
;-)
sorry, couldn't resist
german tax shelter
that's how he does it: you can't lose money backing a money losing film made by uwe boll. he basically has exploited a financial loop hole that the german goverment instituted in a well-meaning way to get german movies made, but instead their law got raped by a troll called boll making bad non-german movies based on video games
the good news: the germans repealed the law awhile back
so how and why is he still making movies?
because of comments like yours. no, really: the first rule of public relations is that there is no such thing as bad public relations. he gets his name out there. he is now riding on his notoreity. hated and vilified, but his name still gets out there. that gets him interest. really
want to never hear of another uwe boll movie again? stop mentioning him. i'm serious
and that online petition? guaranteed to wind up creating this, from two weeks ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/movies/18schw.html
which feeds the monste rof loathing him more, which gets more ocmments on slashdot, which means the undead troll boll lives forever
one of my first jobs in life, in high school, consisted of going to the local town hall, typing up the records of the week's real estate transactions on the model 100, and then relaying it back to the local paper over a 300 bps modem (also self-contained, rather than needing those rubbery headset couplers i remember from the time)
i remember marvelling at the time how high tech my job was! (that, and how many real estate transactions were made for a $1)
Thanks for taking some questions.
;-)
The Internet has a number of plays out there for self-distribution and self-promotion. A lot of these avenues are relatively fresh, so it is hard to tell, but by your judgment, are there any self-promotion or self-distribution avenues that are absolutely must-have for an indie movie maker? I'm thinking perhaps of things like the Withoutabox system, or Massify.
Is it prudent to publish on YouTube before making any other distribution deals to get the word out? Or does this put you in an unattractive bargaining position with potential distributors, online or off, such that your content is already out there, even though in lo-res quality?
As for "And who knows? Maybe NEHST will finance your next movie." see my site.
And thanks again.
why are signatures supposed to have represented security, in any context, at any time period in the past?
it's just a formality, a minor road block. it's not anything remotely secure, but it represents a tangible personalization. it's psychological more than it is security: making your personal mark on a deal
for that psychological reason, the signature will never go away. but nor should anyone have ever thought of them as a security feature in the first place. they are trivial to defeat, and always have been trivial to defeat. all you need is one copy of someone's signature and 15 minutes of patience and practice and anyone with a pen and a writing hand can copy your signature good enough to fool a third party
a white picket fence won't stop someone committed to getting in your yard either. but is that a reason to take down your fence? or upgrade to 10 foot chain link with barbed wire? no: you're simply thinking about the value of a white picket fence in the wrong context
the problem is not with the security questions surrounding a written signature, the problem is in ever thinking of them in a security context. it's a psychological and personalization context question, the use, and continued use, for a long time to come, of the written signature
you do understand how teh intartubes work, right? you do understand how sovereignty works, right?
is the contest usa-centric?
Dr. Lathrop is hiring Hilary Swank to drill into the core of the sodium to get it spinning ... for added realism. yup
it was meant as a stupid joke. there is nothing informative about my post at all. toshiba is NOT making a decepticon called xray
so i find myself in the interesting predicament of asking someone to mod down my own post in the interest of honesty. i've been misunderstood. or at least mod me funny instead?
toshiba is indeed creating a new DVD player, yes, this is true. and indeed, the DVD player they are making will not be blu-ray... it will be x-ray, a decepticon character for the upcoming transformers 2 movie. its gimmicky product placement
so everyone calm down, this is merely a movie technology villain, not a villain of movie technology. i mean yes, it is a technology villain from a movie, not a villainous movie tech, i mean... oh forget it
but it is also solved by genetic variation. the story is a little hysterical, as african varieties are also genetically different enough to resist the new cavendish-hungry fungus. not that the african varieties can't be attacked, but the emphasis is on african VARIETIES: more genetic variation means more resistance to the weakness of monoculture
i would redirect http://slashdot.org/ to http:///..org
yeah how funny is it now that the joke is on the other foot biatches!
if you have the page render in firefox as appearance a
and you have the page render in ie as appearance b
then its a rather simple top level switch to say "all ie8 requests get rendered as appearance a"
you're not talking about a lot of work here folks
"It's based on an old Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, and the battle between light and darkness."
the battle between light and darkness IS an old persian religion, but zoroastrianism (another old persian religion) is not the religion in question. they mean manichaeism
the monotheistic religions hold that there is one dominant good power. the manichaeans meanwhile were dualists: they believed the forces of good and evil are evenly matched
hands down, if your programming language doesn't have a GOTO statement, it is a miserable failure
the idea is to find redundant connections between sir francis bacon and kevin bacon: socially, in film, genetically, and via wikipedia links
this sort of alternate connection generation is known as a double bacon whopper with cheese
something like werner herzog's fanatical devotion to making fitzcarraldo:
but then you go and ruin all my beautiful cinematic mental imagery of the movie "tunguska: the all consuming obsession"... by pointing out its just a spellchecker failure
poopiehead
(i'm sorry, i could be more polite, but you're really so deluded there is no other polite way to address you than moron):
human nature is a static unchanging condition. you do not change human nature. instead, human nature changes and destroys your naive ignorant wishful ideology. do you understand how that works? you do not skateboard into a brickwall and wishfully think the brickwall will just disappear as you approach. no, you hit the brickwall, then you fall down. in case the analogy is too much for you: human nature=brick wall. your ideology=skateboarder. apparently i have to hold your hand on these kinds of comparisons
your ideology must conform to human nature in order to be successful. you cannot form your ideology IN WILLFUL DDISOBEYANCE OF HUMAN NATURE AND EXPECT ANYTHING TO WORK. based on hoping people will suddenly start behaving in ways no group of human beings has ever behaved in 1 million years of our existence, in any culture, in any time period. understand? is that too complicated a concept for you? moron?
reference: communism. if you want more wikipedia references tro start your stunning edumacation on human nature, try, oh, any utopian society set up anywhere in the world over the last 500 years, started by the same clueless wishful naive thinkers like you. and then follow the results
good day, fucktard
this is just astroturf advertising
for the upcoming x-files movie this july
relax, i'm joking, but what is described sounds exactly like an x-files episode, doesn't it?
however, i am certainly smarter than you
you who believe that anarchy is somehow better
what do you expect except derision and laughter at such stupidity?