How is this a surprise? A lot of people think aliens are coming down from on high and giving people anal probes. Hidden government super-technology pales by comparison.
It's amusing how blackmail will land you in jail if you're a prole, but if you work for the government you not only get a free pass, but the practice is accepted.
Can't say I'm in favor of allowing the government to break the law, even if it's dressed up as a 'deal'.
In this day and age of cheap hard drives and ubiquitous broadband, why should anyone care much about an additional 30% compression rate? I have over 100,000 high-quality images of everything from the Welsh countryside to the Horsehead Nebula, most large enough to be backgrounds, and I don't see the appeal of this. If ever I ran out of disk space (not bloody likely) I could easily and cheaply just mount another hard drive or two.
Bread and circuses. Remember, the primary danger of any democracy is that one day the proles will wake up and decide to "vote" themselves the thing that others have, all for "the greater good", of course. Just think: how many times have you heard some bullshit argument about "the greater good" recently? How many times *just over this one article*?
The proles are waking up and smelling blood. The only thing that stops them is the Constitution, and as our politicians seem intent on using it as toilet paper to wipe their ass with that may not be a factor for much longer.
No, the real problem is that the government has granted the telcom monopoly power in the first place. The very fact that monopoly exists is the evil here, not the effect of that monopoly.
We do all know that monopolies in telecommunications are granted in return for cash, don't we? That's how you get your cable and it's still how you get your non-mobile phone service, pr to the contrary notwithstanding. Cities or counties grant monopoly status to the provider they think will best suit the needs of the locality, which usually means whatever company was best able to provide teenage hookers and crack to the local city council or county commissioners. Less so with phone service now (even if the providers still have to pay kickbacks in order to operate within that locality), but cable works the way it has for the last half-century.
There would be no monopoly if the government didn't enforce it in the first place.
I get really goddamn tired of all the geek stereotyping (fat smelly unepmployed virgins living in their parents' basements, etc.
That *is* the average geek, by definition. Geeks *aren't* normal, otherwise they'd never fit the criteria for geekhood. The fact that you have a sex life with something other than your hand is proof positive that you aren't a geek.
She's very androgynous. When I first saw her I thought she'd been created by a gay man yearning to turn her into a teenage boy.
I think she appeals to boys who're terrified of women, and would prefer their female attributes (hips and breasts) weren't too prominent. And, of course, the closet fudgepackers, of which there seems to be quite a few in the geek crowd.
doesn't mean that women in general can't object to the way they are depicted.
Of course they can - free speech and all. But it isn't the women who're making the objection who're being depicted as 'objects'. If they think so they're in serious need of therapy to cure their self-delusions.
I suspect much of the ire here is due in part to the fact that the women pissed off over the whole thing don't, for the most part, have the attributes we so admire. Sounds like jealousy turned into some nonsensical PC crusade.
"hypersexed" only in the opinion of a bunch of tight-assed freaks with a penchant for Puritanism that they just HAVE to try to enforce on the rest of us.
There have been people around to complain about sex and music since humans developed a sense of morality...
It isn't morality that drives them, but the desire for the power to tell everyone else how to live their lives. These people are just plain evil, in a very petty way.
Or more directly: outlaw the corporation itself. I fail to see why an imaginary entity should have the same rights - no, more actually - than a real person. I also fail to see why people who use the corporation to commit criminal acts (corporations aren't self-aware; it's *people* doing the illegal things here) are often protected from going to jail, while if I do the exact same thing I'll almost certainly be rotting in a cell somewhere.
Corporations should never have been given rights. They are not people and do not deserve rights.
Well lets see - I patent something and someone comes along, copies my stuff, relabels it and then says "oh look I am going to patent it too." kind of lame no?
Sounds like the Microsoft way of doing business for, oh, the last twenty years. Seems to work just fine in both the U.S. and Europe.
lets just get rid of a pretty useful law that has been serving us for over a hundred years.
In America we already have. This is the sum total of the Constitutional charge concerning copyright:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Article I, Section 8
Current copyright law makes a joke of this charge. Note that the law says nothing about a right to profit, or any such nonsense.
Apparently you don't have the first damned clue what SLAPP litigation is all about. To put it simply, it means that someone with deep pockets sues a person or group who annoys them, with the intent of either forcing them into court for the next couple of years to emasculate them, or to bankrupt them. It's been extended over the years to a wide variety of different pursuits, one of which is to stall out a startup long enough for a company to rip off their idea and make it their own. I'm sure a few obvious examples will pop to mind if you think about it for a few seconds....
But what is technologically good may not be the right thing.
The argument of those who favor the status quo. You want some piece of the world to stay exactly the way it is, and whine and moan and wring your hands when it appears it's going to change. But of course! Anyone in favor of altering that piece of the world MUST be a criminal! Because, like, you say so! And anyone who disagrees with you is a liar!
Really, this argument has been used since the dawn of time in a futile effort to keep things exactly the way they are because some people either just happen to like them that way, or they profit from the situation. And lo! Despite all this, technology continues to march on, and things continue to change.
You're pissing into the wind, and predicting doom when all the historical evidence in the world says that YOU are the liar here, whether you admit it or not. These technologies won't "end"; they'll continue to evolve no matter what you or anyone else - RIAA and MPAA included - think about the matter, or wish to be true.
If not for these threats, there probably would be enough file sharing freeloaders to actually hurt the publisher's revenues.
This is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion. You have no actual facts to back it up. Quite the opposite, actually, since both cd sales and ticket revenues continue to climb *despite* the poor economy.
So what should I believe? Your personal opinion, or all the actual data to date? Think I'll stick with the data.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this a surprise? A lot of people think aliens are coming down from on high and giving people anal probes. Hidden government super-technology pales by comparison.
Max
It's amusing how blackmail will land you in jail if you're a prole, but if you work for the government you not only get a free pass, but the practice is accepted.
Can't say I'm in favor of allowing the government to break the law, even if it's dressed up as a 'deal'.
Max
Slashdot even know this is the case, and disallow their site to be validated.
Slashdot doesn't allow their page to be validated because their coding is an embarrassment.
Max
Works fine in Opera.
Max
In this day and age of cheap hard drives and ubiquitous broadband, why should anyone care much about an additional 30% compression rate? I have over 100,000 high-quality images of everything from the Welsh countryside to the Horsehead Nebula, most large enough to be backgrounds, and I don't see the appeal of this. If ever I ran out of disk space (not bloody likely) I could easily and cheaply just mount another hard drive or two.
Max
Yeah, just what we need: socialism. Just look at the wonders it's done for Europe!
Max
Bread and circuses. Remember, the primary danger of any democracy is that one day the proles will wake up and decide to "vote" themselves the thing that others have, all for "the greater good", of course. Just think: how many times have you heard some bullshit argument about "the greater good" recently? How many times *just over this one article*?
The proles are waking up and smelling blood. The only thing that stops them is the Constitution, and as our politicians seem intent on using it as toilet paper to wipe their ass with that may not be a factor for much longer.
Max
No, the real problem is that the government has granted the telcom monopoly power in the first place. The very fact that monopoly exists is the evil here, not the effect of that monopoly.
We do all know that monopolies in telecommunications are granted in return for cash, don't we? That's how you get your cable and it's still how you get your non-mobile phone service, pr to the contrary notwithstanding. Cities or counties grant monopoly status to the provider they think will best suit the needs of the locality, which usually means whatever company was best able to provide teenage hookers and crack to the local city council or county commissioners. Less so with phone service now (even if the providers still have to pay kickbacks in order to operate within that locality), but cable works the way it has for the last half-century.
There would be no monopoly if the government didn't enforce it in the first place.
Max
before the greater good of society.
The "greater good of society"? Exactly what is that and who gets to define it? You? Why not me?
As always, 'greater good' arguments are nothing more than a smokescreen for saying 'you should all do what I tell you to do, because I say so'.
Max
Capitalists don't love monopolies. Monopolists love monopolies. The two aren't even close to being one and the same.
Max
Guess I shoulda used "butt pirate" instead, eh?
Max
I get really goddamn tired of all the geek stereotyping (fat smelly unepmployed virgins living in their parents' basements, etc.
That *is* the average geek, by definition. Geeks *aren't* normal, otherwise they'd never fit the criteria for geekhood. The fact that you have a sex life with something other than your hand is proof positive that you aren't a geek.
Max
Got news for you- corporations are capitalists in the extreme.
No they aren't. Established corporations *hate* capitalism. Capitalism means competition for the piece of the pie they already have.
America is more a corporate oligarchy than anything else. Real capitalism died a long, long time ago and we only pay lip service to it now.
Max
DO you realize how foolish you sound, cavalierly using expressions like "get their panties in a bunch" in a discussion of gender politics?
No need to get your panties in a bunch about it. It's just an expression.
Max
She's very androgynous. When I first saw her I thought she'd been created by a gay man yearning to turn her into a teenage boy.
I think she appeals to boys who're terrified of women, and would prefer their female attributes (hips and breasts) weren't too prominent. And, of course, the closet fudgepackers, of which there seems to be quite a few in the geek crowd.
Max
No, that would describe the *average human being*, I think.
Max
doesn't mean that women in general can't object to the way they are depicted.
Of course they can - free speech and all. But it isn't the women who're making the objection who're being depicted as 'objects'. If they think so they're in serious need of therapy to cure their self-delusions.
I suspect much of the ire here is due in part to the fact that the women pissed off over the whole thing don't, for the most part, have the attributes we so admire. Sounds like jealousy turned into some nonsensical PC crusade.
Max
for showing too many hypersexed music videos
"hypersexed" only in the opinion of a bunch of tight-assed freaks with a penchant for Puritanism that they just HAVE to try to enforce on the rest of us.
There have been people around to complain about sex and music since humans developed a sense of morality...
It isn't morality that drives them, but the desire for the power to tell everyone else how to live their lives. These people are just plain evil, in a very petty way.
Max
So you're saying it's okay to objectify women if we also objectify men?
Sure. But then I'm not some ultra-PC hack looking for a return of Puritanism under the guise of 'sensitivity'.
Max
The biggest market for computer games is *over* 25 years of age, not under.
Max
Or more directly: outlaw the corporation itself. I fail to see why an imaginary entity should have the same rights - no, more actually - than a real person. I also fail to see why people who use the corporation to commit criminal acts (corporations aren't self-aware; it's *people* doing the illegal things here) are often protected from going to jail, while if I do the exact same thing I'll almost certainly be rotting in a cell somewhere.
Corporations should never have been given rights. They are not people and do not deserve rights.
Max
Well lets see - I patent something and someone comes along, copies my stuff, relabels it and then says "oh look I am going to patent it too." kind of lame no?
Sounds like the Microsoft way of doing business for, oh, the last twenty years. Seems to work just fine in both the U.S. and Europe.
lets just get rid of a pretty useful law that has been serving us for over a hundred years.
In America we already have. This is the sum total of the Constitutional charge concerning copyright:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Article I, Section 8
Current copyright law makes a joke of this charge. Note that the law says nothing about a right to profit, or any such nonsense.
Max
Apparently you don't have the first damned clue what SLAPP litigation is all about. To put it simply, it means that someone with deep pockets sues a person or group who annoys them, with the intent of either forcing them into court for the next couple of years to emasculate them, or to bankrupt them. It's been extended over the years to a wide variety of different pursuits, one of which is to stall out a startup long enough for a company to rip off their idea and make it their own. I'm sure a few obvious examples will pop to mind if you think about it for a few seconds....
Max
But what is technologically good may not be the right thing.
The argument of those who favor the status quo. You want some piece of the world to stay exactly the way it is, and whine and moan and wring your hands when it appears it's going to change. But of course! Anyone in favor of altering that piece of the world MUST be a criminal! Because, like, you say so! And anyone who disagrees with you is a liar!
Really, this argument has been used since the dawn of time in a futile effort to keep things exactly the way they are because some people either just happen to like them that way, or they profit from the situation. And lo! Despite all this, technology continues to march on, and things continue to change.
You're pissing into the wind, and predicting doom when all the historical evidence in the world says that YOU are the liar here, whether you admit it or not. These technologies won't "end"; they'll continue to evolve no matter what you or anyone else - RIAA and MPAA included - think about the matter, or wish to be true.
Max
If not for these threats, there probably would be enough file sharing freeloaders to actually hurt the publisher's revenues.
This is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion. You have no actual facts to back it up. Quite the opposite, actually, since both cd sales and ticket revenues continue to climb *despite* the poor economy.
So what should I believe? Your personal opinion, or all the actual data to date? Think I'll stick with the data.
Max