i am not looking for a soap box, i am offering you a soap box. if you ever had dreams of pulling a michael moore or a morgan spurlock on the riaa, let's do it
call it "taking on the riaa", or i am sure you can think of a better title. we can sample some of the more egregious bastard things these guys pull, and document, in real time, as they are taken down in case after case, digesting it into something more palatable for the mainstream public by explaining to them why it should matter (in a cinematic way, not a talky way: interview say that woman from wappingers falls who was attacked). emotionally, it would simply be little guy versus vile conglomerate. all factual, no stagey theatrics. but not boring and dry legalese. done right, it would be cinema gold
i'm 100% serious. if you are game, i am willing to commit serious time to this. lead us on nycl. i am sure there are other slashdotters who would sign on to this too
whenever the subject matter of tv comes up, i can count on someone in the comments smug enough to loudly announce that he doesn't watch or own a television. who do i get to ridicule now?
but seeing that my own comment was quite the substantative jaunt into paranoid schizophrenia land, i would be hypocritical to criticize your assertion, even if i think it is even more paranoid than mine
i would reply by criticizing my own assertion: a good argument against my assertion would be that once mossad did this, iran would make dang sure it never happened again. in other words, it is a maneuver you can only do once. after that, your enemy will make sure it never happens again. in which case, it would make sense to reserve the action of cutting off internet access to your enemy's entire country only for a time of serious war, when the action can produce the most benefit
to cut access now, would seem to be a waste in that regard
it's psyops: the psychological manipulation of not a person, but country, in this case, the whole of iran. you make someone feel vulnerable and insecure and paranoid by severing their communication with the outside world. someone at mossad noticed how feeble and vulnerable iran's internet access was, and did a litle power maneuver
is stupid because somebody can just kick in a window
except it isn't stupid. if someone is determined enough, they will break into my house, no doubt. most of the security features on my house are meant to deter those with a casual interest
same with all of the efforts that tippett pokes holes in. well yeah, duh: every single security effort in the world is surmountable. what's the value in pointing that out? none
that someone can get over your security measures with effort is not an argument against the lowest level of security. the lowest level security practices always has value: against casual transgressions
so let me get this straight, that you actually believe this:
a "political theory" (read: shallow selfishness masquerading as something deeper) based on giving as little as possible to public institutions, is going to release the floodgates on massive charitable giving
doesn't even begin to pass the laugh test
you want to tell me, you want me to believe, that a group of people arguing for giving the least to public institutions are... drum roll please... going to become bountifully generous givers to charity in the utopia of libertarianism
pffffffffffftttttttttttt
my only question is: can i smoke what you are smoking to believe that flaming giant pos?
here, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt: assuming there are some idiotic naive twits who actually believe that a "philosophy" founded on giving as little as possible to the concept of the public good is going to mean more charitable giving
let's just go with the idea that there are actually people that naive in the world. there probably are in fact
now, if you are such a naive twit: in the boundless limits of your imagination, you can't imagine that this "philosophy" will appeal, in the overwhelming majority, to people who are, frankly, nothing but selfish aholes, who will in fact not give one penny even if they are filthy rich?
impossible, right?
my god the naivete
unfortunate ugly truth of this world: for many people, even if they appreciate the concept of a need to invest in the public good, you still have to force them to do that. that if you make it voluntary, only a fraction of people will give
because people arguing for giving the least to public institutions are bountifully generous givers to charity
you've swalloed the hype man. a politicla theory that is little more than selfishness is not a mainstay of charitable giving. doesn't even remotely pass the laugh test
and his cadre of theocrats that the heliocentric earth is an abomination in the eyes of god, an affront to the rightful god-created geocentric universe. that's why the physical sciences didn't get as shafted
poor biomedicine. we all know that messing with the building blocks of life is the devil's work, but still
maybe if someone told the theocrats that the god-given holy oil, currently unjustly in the hands of the heathen mohammedeans on the arabian peninsula, was an act of god as manifested in billion, i mean er, million, i mean er, six thousand year old organic matter. and that biological research might someday free the god-given holy oil to its rightful ownership by christian nations through artificially made, i mean er, as manifested by god working through the hands of biological researchers. then maybe they will support more biological research
is the cannibalization of one the parties, a la the decline of the whigs
two party politics is all about math. we have two parties because our voting system maximizes to this existence. other countries have multiple parties. but you don't want to know about the lack of principles going on there (socialists getting into bed with archconservatives in order to form coalitions, etc.)
in other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same. and your complaint: the callowness of politics, is a tale as old as time, and will be with us forever
and no, dorothy, there really is a moderate middle. the so called red state blue state bullshit is a divisive myth, not a divisive reality. the vast majority of americans agree with each other on the vast majority of important topics, republican or democrat
you need to get used to the way politics works. you're not giving up on your ideals, you are beginning to understand reality
you need to take the first step, to bring yourself into reality. a good first step would be, repeat after me: "a fringe candidate will not make war magically disappear"
libertarianism appeals to earnest but naive college students with too many philosophy books under their belt, but without any real life experience, who build castles in the sky in their minds about how the world should or would or could work if people just started behaving in ways people have never behaved in any culture or time period since the dawn of mankind
it also appeals to rural folk, who don't understand how they fit into the larger world, and firmly believe themselves to be islands completely owing nothing to anyone else (you and your limited government paean). what they are of course is coccooned within a larger country and system upon which the relative peace and quiet of their worlds depend. but it is hard to see that from the hinterlands until madness marches across the countryside, which it does, unfortunately, in societies that have abandoned the simple common human responsibility we have to take care of each other. in other words, all of the bounty of your life depends upon the statehood you despise. but you can't see the connection, because you are blind to it. but it is there, making the entirety of your life possible, because you can't see the connection, doesn't mean anything except you are blind to your place in the world and civilization. we need a strong state
libertarianism also appeals to 40 something selfish assholes behind on their alimony payments, corrupt and personally bankrupt about any give and take in their lives. nothing more needs to be said of such people. we understand them, and we understand why libertarianism appeals to them on a deep level
libertarianism is nothing but a code word for selfishness, dressed up in political signals and philosphical portents. but if you dress up a cheap whore in a fine dress, she's still a cheap whore. so it is with libertarians and anyone who spouts that nonsense
i put it this way: human nature is both altruistic and selfish. any political philosophy you present to the world has to address both sides of this coin, or you have built a political philosophy which is a nonstarter in the real world, because it doesn't jive with the nature of the humans you are attempting to impose it on
we all understand why communism doesn't work: it depends upon altruism, and doesn't address human selfishness. in a communist system, selfishness still exists, in the human beings in the system, but unaddressed by the system imposed upon them, and so selfishness eats communism apart from the inside
if you will, if a whole country suddenly went libertarian, you'd have the exact same problems as a communist country, in reverse along the axis of human selfishness-altruism. it would fail. as miserably and as surely as communism did. for the same reasons, in mirror image reverse
libertarianism is a gem of modern foolishness, and you are a glorious fool if you swallow the pap called libertarianism
the conscience and awareness of the "uneducated" masses is actually more resistant to propaganda than the intellectuals. the more education you have, the more susceptible to propaganda you are. this is true because much of education is not so much hard scientific fact, but really nothing more than indoctrination into the dominant agenda of your clique. this is a true observation for the so called "educated" liberals and "educated" conservatives. for such highly "educated" classes of people, you are really talking about nothing more than indoctrination into an aristocratic viewpoint which is essentially disconnected from the real genuine agenda of the great moderate middle class masses
i trust the wisdom and true intelligence of the so-called uneducated moderate masses way more than i trust the indoctrinated rightists and leftists
but don't take this random slashdotter's opinion for granted, read up on jacques ellul:
The uncultured man cannot be reached by propaganda. Experience and research done by the Germans between 1933 and 1938 showed that in remote areas, where people hardly knew how to read, propaganda had no effect The same holds true for the enormous effort in the Communist world to teach people how to read. In Korea, the local script was terribly difficult and complicated; so, in North Korea, the Communists created an entirely new alphabet and a simple script in order to teach all the people how to read. In China, Mao simplified the script in his battle with illiteracy, and in some places in China new alphabets are being created. This would have no particular significance except that the texts used to teach the adult students how to read -- and which are the only texts to which they have access -- are exclusively propaganda texts; they are political tracts, poems to the glory of the Communist regime, extracts of classical Marxism. Among the Tibetans, the Mongols, the Ouighbours, the Manchus, the only texts in the new script are Mao's works. Thus, we see here a wonderful shaping tool: The illiterates are taught to read only the new script; nothing is published in that script except propaganda texts; therefore, the illiterates cannot possibly read -- or know -- anything else.
Also, one of the most effective propaganda methods in Asia was to establish "teachers" to teach reading and indoctrinate people at the same time. The prestige of the intellectual -- "marked with God's finger" -- allowed political assertions to appear as Truth, while the prestige of the printed word one learned to decipher confirmed the validity of what the teachers said. These facts leave no doubt that the development of primary education is a fundamental condition for the organization of propaganda, even though such a conclusion may run counter to many prejudices, best expressed by Paul Rivet's pointed but completely unrealistic words: "A person who cannot read a newspaper is not free."
that if a fringe party or candidate wins, all of the wrongs you listed gets reversed. as if war suddenly won't happen anymore. as if everybody will be fiscally responsible all of a sudden. rainbows and unicorns will become plentiful too. you believe the hype
no, all that will happen is that the legacy of the fringe candidate or the fringe party cannibalizes the base of the democrats or the republicans, and simply replaces them. in all ways. until after a few years, you can't tell the difference between the previously fringe and the well-established at all
but don't take my word on it, read about the whig party. it happened before, and it almost happened with ross perot in the 1990s, and it might happen again if the republicans or the democrats leave their base feeling very disenchanted
and btw, this shift to entrenched behavior by the fringe HAS to happen. you have to pander to the great moderate middle in order to retain power. and this is a GOOD thing: democracy ensures that the moderate middle is satisfied, resulting in a stable government and society. of course, this is not so good for the malcontents on the fringe of the left and right. but again, it's a GOOD thing the fringe left and the fringe right are never electable in a democracy. the fringe is fringe for a reason: their agenda does not match the agenda of the people. therefore, their agenda should not be in the halls of power. simple (and for those who think gw bush is a radical rightist or bill clinton is a radical leftist: this speaks more information about your own fringe status in the opposite direction than any truth of the right ideoogical orientation of these presidents: a little to the right, and a little to the left)
all that really happens in elections with relatively popular fringe candidates like ron paul is that if the fringe party is from the right, it fractures the right's support base and the lefty candidate wins (ross perot got bill clinton elected). if the fringe party candidate is from the left, it fratures the left's support base and the righty candidate wins (ralph nader got george bush elected)
so, being a democrat myself, i fully support the ron paul candidate. most of his fringe supporters would otherwise vote republican. therefore, ron paul ensures a democratic victory
the story of the ron paul candidacy is the story of the legions of contrail conspiracists, racists, libertarians, alternative utopian fruitcakes, and other wildcard assorted crackpots on teh intarwebs banding together and choosing their representative. never before in american politics has such a force like the internet allowed such disparate trollish lunatic fringe voices to band together and coordinate their efforts
long live the internet. allowing crackpot internet types to choose the troll candidate for presidency since 2007
"software engineering" or whatever the hell it is, is something a smart 10 year old can learn and do as well as some guy who has 40 years in the field. you will of course here blather about knowing about N gates and P gates, UML and use case
as if any of that crap really matters. seriously
not having htis matter is good, because unlike a real chemical engineer, us IT plumbers, or dot com hot air wranglers, or whatever the hell we are, don't have to play with chemicals that give us cancer
at the same time, as soon as we turn 30, we are antiquated and ancient
long live the ultimate job title: electron marching band drill designer
Slashdot Mirror
i live and work in midtown, have an hd camera and an editting set up, and a burning passion in support of a common sense approach to intellectual property
i am not looking for a soap box, i am offering you a soap box. if you ever had dreams of pulling a michael moore or a morgan spurlock on the riaa, let's do it
call it "taking on the riaa", or i am sure you can think of a better title. we can sample some of the more egregious bastard things these guys pull, and document, in real time, as they are taken down in case after case, digesting it into something more palatable for the mainstream public by explaining to them why it should matter (in a cinematic way, not a talky way: interview say that woman from wappingers falls who was attacked). emotionally, it would simply be little guy versus vile conglomerate. all factual, no stagey theatrics. but not boring and dry legalese. done right, it would be cinema gold
i'm 100% serious. if you are game, i am willing to commit serious time to this. lead us on nycl. i am sure there are other slashdotters who would sign on to this too
whenever the subject matter of tv comes up, i can count on someone in the comments smug enough to loudly announce that he doesn't watch or own a television. who do i get to ridicule now?
where oh where is my favorite smug stereotype?
but seeing that my own comment was quite the substantative jaunt into paranoid schizophrenia land, i would be hypocritical to criticize your assertion, even if i think it is even more paranoid than mine
i would reply by criticizing my own assertion: a good argument against my assertion would be that once mossad did this, iran would make dang sure it never happened again. in other words, it is a maneuver you can only do once. after that, your enemy will make sure it never happens again. in which case, it would make sense to reserve the action of cutting off internet access to your enemy's entire country only for a time of serious war, when the action can produce the most benefit
to cut access now, would seem to be a waste in that regard
it's psyops: the psychological manipulation of not a person, but country, in this case, the whole of iran. you make someone feel vulnerable and insecure and paranoid by severing their communication with the outside world. someone at mossad noticed how feeble and vulnerable iran's internet access was, and did a litle power maneuver
are a mega scum bag and a cockroach, and there are probably more cockroaches at the company you work for
however, i will reciprocate felatoin with you even though you have fat thighs, a fake medical
degree, queefs and have poor feminine hygiene
facebooks should just adopt openid
it's getting to the point where you really don't have to think anymore to solve problems in information technology
just read slashdot headlines. problems, and solutions, present themselves. often in temporal order. right next to each other
(scratches head)
is stupid because somebody can just kick in a window
except it isn't stupid. if someone is determined enough, they will break into my house, no doubt. most of the security features on my house are meant to deter those with a casual interest
same with all of the efforts that tippett pokes holes in. well yeah, duh: every single security effort in the world is surmountable. what's the value in pointing that out? none
that someone can get over your security measures with effort is not an argument against the lowest level of security. the lowest level security practices always has value: against casual transgressions
in such a way that you break interoperability, you've effectively negated the value of your "improvements"
maintaining interoperability is not something that has to be an active policy matter. it maintains itself out of inertia. the network effect
no one wants to use a standard which means you have broken contact with the vast majority of users
this story is a dupe ;-)
cognizant factors laughing mainly if no can wormhole torsion mostly antibacterial softly
got that?
so let me get this straight, that you actually believe this:
a "political theory" (read: shallow selfishness masquerading as something deeper) based on giving as little as possible to public institutions, is going to release the floodgates on massive charitable giving
doesn't even begin to pass the laugh test
you want to tell me, you want me to believe, that a group of people arguing for giving the least to public institutions are... drum roll please... going to become bountifully generous givers to charity in the utopia of libertarianism
pffffffffffftttttttttttt
my only question is: can i smoke what you are smoking to believe that flaming giant pos?
here, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt: assuming there are some idiotic naive twits who actually believe that a "philosophy" founded on giving as little as possible to the concept of the public good is going to mean more charitable giving
let's just go with the idea that there are actually people that naive in the world. there probably are in fact
now, if you are such a naive twit: in the boundless limits of your imagination, you can't imagine that this "philosophy" will appeal, in the overwhelming majority, to people who are, frankly, nothing but selfish aholes, who will in fact not give one penny even if they are filthy rich?
impossible, right?
my god the naivete
unfortunate ugly truth of this world: for many people, even if they appreciate the concept of a need to invest in the public good, you still have to force them to do that. that if you make it voluntary, only a fraction of people will give
ugly
but iron clad truth
sorry to burst your bubble, my naive friend
(snicker)
because people arguing for giving the least to public institutions are bountifully generous givers to charity
you've swalloed the hype man. a politicla theory that is little more than selfishness is not a mainstay of charitable giving. doesn't even remotely pass the laugh test
and his cadre of theocrats that the heliocentric earth is an abomination in the eyes of god, an affront to the rightful god-created geocentric universe. that's why the physical sciences didn't get as shafted
poor biomedicine. we all know that messing with the building blocks of life is the devil's work, but still
maybe if someone told the theocrats that the god-given holy oil, currently unjustly in the hands of the heathen mohammedeans on the arabian peninsula, was an act of god as manifested in billion, i mean er, million, i mean er, six thousand year old organic matter. and that biological research might someday free the god-given holy oil to its rightful ownership by christian nations through artificially made, i mean er, as manifested by god working through the hands of biological researchers. then maybe they will support more biological research
amen
anthropomorphic talking christmas turd
is the cannibalization of one the parties, a la the decline of the whigs
two party politics is all about math. we have two parties because our voting system maximizes to this existence. other countries have multiple parties. but you don't want to know about the lack of principles going on there (socialists getting into bed with archconservatives in order to form coalitions, etc.)
in other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same. and your complaint: the callowness of politics, is a tale as old as time, and will be with us forever
and no, dorothy, there really is a moderate middle. the so called red state blue state bullshit is a divisive myth, not a divisive reality. the vast majority of americans agree with each other on the vast majority of important topics, republican or democrat
you need to get used to the way politics works. you're not giving up on your ideals, you are beginning to understand reality
you need to take the first step, to bring yourself into reality. a good first step would be, repeat after me: "a fringe candidate will not make war magically disappear"
you honestly think that is what motivates me?
(scratches head)
i am at an utter loss to understand how you arrived at that conclusion. what is it that i am supposed to be scared of in your mind?
libertarianism appeals to earnest but naive college students with too many philosophy books under their belt, but without any real life experience, who build castles in the sky in their minds about how the world should or would or could work if people just started behaving in ways people have never behaved in any culture or time period since the dawn of mankind
it also appeals to rural folk, who don't understand how they fit into the larger world, and firmly believe themselves to be islands completely owing nothing to anyone else (you and your limited government paean). what they are of course is coccooned within a larger country and system upon which the relative peace and quiet of their worlds depend. but it is hard to see that from the hinterlands until madness marches across the countryside, which it does, unfortunately, in societies that have abandoned the simple common human responsibility we have to take care of each other. in other words, all of the bounty of your life depends upon the statehood you despise. but you can't see the connection, because you are blind to it. but it is there, making the entirety of your life possible, because you can't see the connection, doesn't mean anything except you are blind to your place in the world and civilization. we need a strong state
libertarianism also appeals to 40 something selfish assholes behind on their alimony payments, corrupt and personally bankrupt about any give and take in their lives. nothing more needs to be said of such people. we understand them, and we understand why libertarianism appeals to them on a deep level
libertarianism is nothing but a code word for selfishness, dressed up in political signals and philosphical portents. but if you dress up a cheap whore in a fine dress, she's still a cheap whore. so it is with libertarians and anyone who spouts that nonsense
i put it this way: human nature is both altruistic and selfish. any political philosophy you present to the world has to address both sides of this coin, or you have built a political philosophy which is a nonstarter in the real world, because it doesn't jive with the nature of the humans you are attempting to impose it on
we all understand why communism doesn't work: it depends upon altruism, and doesn't address human selfishness. in a communist system, selfishness still exists, in the human beings in the system, but unaddressed by the system imposed upon them, and so selfishness eats communism apart from the inside
if you will, if a whole country suddenly went libertarian, you'd have the exact same problems as a communist country, in reverse along the axis of human selfishness-altruism. it would fail. as miserably and as surely as communism did. for the same reasons, in mirror image reverse
libertarianism is a gem of modern foolishness, and you are a glorious fool if you swallow the pap called libertarianism
i trust the wisdom and true intelligence of the so-called uneducated moderate masses way more than i trust the indoctrinated rightists and leftists
but don't take this random slashdotter's opinion for granted, read up on jacques ellul:
http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/propaganda.htm
that if a fringe party or candidate wins, all of the wrongs you listed gets reversed. as if war suddenly won't happen anymore. as if everybody will be fiscally responsible all of a sudden. rainbows and unicorns will become plentiful too. you believe the hype
no, all that will happen is that the legacy of the fringe candidate or the fringe party cannibalizes the base of the democrats or the republicans, and simply replaces them. in all ways. until after a few years, you can't tell the difference between the previously fringe and the well-established at all
but don't take my word on it, read about the whig party. it happened before, and it almost happened with ross perot in the 1990s, and it might happen again if the republicans or the democrats leave their base feeling very disenchanted
and btw, this shift to entrenched behavior by the fringe HAS to happen. you have to pander to the great moderate middle in order to retain power. and this is a GOOD thing: democracy ensures that the moderate middle is satisfied, resulting in a stable government and society. of course, this is not so good for the malcontents on the fringe of the left and right. but again, it's a GOOD thing the fringe left and the fringe right are never electable in a democracy. the fringe is fringe for a reason: their agenda does not match the agenda of the people. therefore, their agenda should not be in the halls of power. simple (and for those who think gw bush is a radical rightist or bill clinton is a radical leftist: this speaks more information about your own fringe status in the opposite direction than any truth of the right ideoogical orientation of these presidents: a little to the right, and a little to the left)
all that really happens in elections with relatively popular fringe candidates like ron paul is that if the fringe party is from the right, it fractures the right's support base and the lefty candidate wins (ross perot got bill clinton elected). if the fringe party candidate is from the left, it fratures the left's support base and the righty candidate wins (ralph nader got george bush elected)
so, being a democrat myself, i fully support the ron paul candidate. most of his fringe supporters would otherwise vote republican. therefore, ron paul ensures a democratic victory
so go ron paul!
(snicker)
the story of the ron paul candidacy is the story of the legions of contrail conspiracists, racists, libertarians, alternative utopian fruitcakes, and other wildcard assorted crackpots on teh intarwebs banding together and choosing their representative. never before in american politics has such a force like the internet allowed such disparate trollish lunatic fringe voices to band together and coordinate their efforts
long live the internet. allowing crackpot internet types to choose the troll candidate for presidency since 2007
"software engineering" or whatever the hell it is, is something a smart 10 year old can learn and do as well as some guy who has 40 years in the field. you will of course here blather about knowing about N gates and P gates, UML and use case
as if any of that crap really matters. seriously
not having htis matter is good, because unlike a real chemical engineer, us IT plumbers, or dot com hot air wranglers, or whatever the hell we are, don't have to play with chemicals that give us cancer
at the same time, as soon as we turn 30, we are antiquated and ancient
long live the ultimate job title: electron marching band drill designer
yes folks, you CAN get addicted to videogames
if you don't get the stars, you get the spiders on your arms ***SHAKE***
i liked it mainly because i couldn't imagine an ad that would piss off PETA more
but i do know what it is not
and what it is not is an hour spent clicking wikipedia links and writing a 6th grade level report