Not necessary; that's covered automatically by the fact that they're using
DeCSS (or some other CSS-decryption algorithm), which immediately makes
them Evil Anti-Capitalist Thieving Pirates, just like
those
damn
Napster users...
[this article is Smiley Captioned for the
sarcasm-impaired] -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
Is anyone else beginning to suspect that
Godwin's
Law needs to be expanded to cover red-baiting (accusations of socialism
and/or communism)? -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
[...] although with video-rental records, it's safe to say that
Democrats were clearly the dirtiest.
*BZZZZT* Sorry, that urban legend is long since debunked. The
Democrats did not subpoena Bork's video rental records;
those records were
published by a D.C. weekly newspaper -- and that paper was immediately
denounced by the Democrats and left-wing groups like the ACLU.
Just doing my bit for historical accuracy... -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
All that happens is that the existing words get a special markup.
It's not like you say "Save the whales" and they change it to "Kill baby
seals."
No, they'll just make "Save the whales" a link to
www.killbabyseals.com. Same difference.
Smart Tags are a relatively benign way to add more dynamic content to a
web page.
Ah, so you admit that Microsoft is changing the content of my web
pages (by adding content that I probably would not approve of, and making
it difficult if not impossible for the average user to disable). This
renders your attempted analogy to user style sheets (which only change the
appearance of web pages, and which must be explicitly enabled by
the user) somewhat disingenuous.
IE will let users control this feature, [...]
For now.
[...] it can be turned off, [...]
For now.
[...] and it can be customized with add ins.
For now. In the Microsoft view, these are "bugs", which will doubtless be
"fixed" in the release version. And as others have already noted, any
"gain" to the user from customizing this "feature" can already be achieved
more easily via the existing bookmark mechanism. Unless, of course, you
meant customization via "add-ins" installed automatically by third-party
sites, and the inevitable can of worms that would open... -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
<NITPICK CATEGORY="grammar" LEVEL="pedantic">
Technically, the statement you cite does not contain a double negative,
since the two negatives are not in the same clause. It is analogous to the
statement, "I didn't say he wasn't here", which is not equivalent to "I did
say he was here"; I might, for instance, have made no statement at all
concerning the alleged presence or absence of the unnamed gentleman in
question. </NITPICK>
On a more on-topic note, I observe that my wrists perversely didn't start
hurting until after I'd read all the comments here... -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
Socialist, no. That's the state ownership of the means of
production.
No, that's
Stalinism.
Socialism
is the ownership of the means of production by workers.
Yes, Stalin did misleadingly describe his system as "socialist" or
"communist,
which has, as you say, led to these terms being widely, if
incorrectly, used as "free floating negative words roughly comparable to
'bad' or 'satanic'." -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
(And I'm not so naive as to believe corporate pressure is never
applied -- certainly, I've seen it happen. But it's minimized remarkably
well.)
Have you read FAIR's
Fear and Favor 2000 report?
It seems to indicate that this sort of thing is a lot more widespread than
you think:
In a 2000 Pew Center for the People & the Press poll of 287 reporters,
editors and news executives, about one-third of respondents said that news
that would "hurt the financial interests" of the media organization or an
advertiser goes unreported. Forty-one percent said they themselves have
avoided stories, or softened their tone, to benefit their media company's
interests.
Apparently not all journalists have your ethical fortitude. -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
I have ads on my site directing people to where they can purchase Palm's
and accessories. Suppose when MS adds their links, they take the reader to
the Microsoft store where they can buy PalmPC's and Windows products.
Sounds kinda like what some TV networks have done/are doing with stuff like
baseball games and
the 2000 New Year's
Eve thing: editing over billboards and other posted advertising shown
on screen (even on live TV) and replacing them with fake billboards for
their own network and other advertisers. I don't remember how much of an
uproar there was when that happened; I wonder how much this will get. -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
Noooo, all rich people are evil, they must all suffer!
? `Scuse me, where did you get "rich people are evil" out of my article?
All I said was that, White House spin to the contrary notwithstanding,
their proposed tax cut does disproportionately benefit the rich
(yes, even in disproportion to how much tax they're paying). -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
The family trying to live on $20,000 of taxable income per year [...]
get an extra $1000.
But don't forget to factor in the inevitable cuts in government services
due to the lost revenue.
It's true that when you cut taxes, the people who pay the most taxes save
the most money. In what way is this bad?
Let me try an analogy: say we buy something together and split the payment
60-40. Then we get a partial refund, and I try to claim 90 percent of it,
arguing that "Of course I should get more back, I paid more in the first
place."
"But not that much more," you'd rightly object. And that's
exactly our objection to Bush's tax cut: after everything is factored in
(like the estate tax repeal that you skated around), the rich are getting
back a bigger slice than they put in.
Is there any tax cut ever that you would approve of?
Hmm, how `bout a cut in the payroll tax? Funny how that never seems to get
mentioned in tax-cut discussions, even though the large majority of
Americans pay more in payroll tax than in income tax.
Aren't the Democrats supposed to be the party that is the friend to the
poor, the party that cares?
Yes, which is why they, and I, object to the rich trying to shift more and
more of the tax burden off their backs and onto the backs of the poor and
middle class.
Oh, one last point: when Reagan got a tax cut passed, the economy revved
up enough that tax revenues increased.
No, they didn't. Inflation-adjusted tax revenues
were down
for several years after Reagan's 1981 tax cut -- and that in a growing
economy, when inflation-adjusted tax revenues would be expected to
increase. -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
One guy is getting back 67% of the 59 bucks! HOLLY HORSE SHIT!!!
That's not fair!!
Actually, in your scenario it is fair, since by your own numbers,
that one guy paid 74 percent of the tax collected. The actual proposed tax
cut plan would be more like that one guy paying in only 70 dollars (33
percent of tax collected) and still getting 40 dollars back (67 percent of
the tax cut).
Kill the guy that thought about the idea of giving an equal tax break
based how much a person paid!!!!
My point all along has been that if you count all of the proposed
tax cut (including the estate tax repeal, which apologists consistently
ignore), the tax break is not equal, because the rich get back a
percentage larger than the percentage they paid. -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
Second, the tax reductions are greater on a percentage basis for the
poor.
This is the big lie that conservatives keep repeating, desperately hoping
to convince the poor and middle class that the government isn't screwing
them over at the behest of the rich. The petitioner follows the
so-called "liberal" media in repeating unchallenged the White House's
deceptive numbers, which deliberately omit the effect of the proposed
estate tax repeal that disproportionately benefits the rich. When the
entire tax proposal is considered,
the richest one percent, who
pay 20 percent of all federal taxes, will receive at least 36 percent of
the tax cuts -- some estimates put it as high as 43 percent. -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
If I say in paragraph (a) that swans are large water fowl that shall be
fed corn and then in paragraph (b) I say that swans consist of the white
ones and the not white ones, that does not mean that only white swans shall
be fed corn.
Ooh, very deft slight-of-hand. The deceptive bit in this
"analogy" is that the part about being fed corn is not in
paragraph (a), but in a completely separate part of the farm rules that
refers specifically to white swans. Remember, "unorganized" means
not "well-regulated".
Your argument trying to use the absence of orders from the President
fails basic logic. He also did not issue orders to launch ICBMs, that does
not that mean they can't be launched.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I phrased that badly,
though I'm inclined to read it as willful misinterpretation. Under
Article II Section 2, someone who did not recognize Bill Clinton as his
commander in chief from 1993 through 2000 was by definition not a member of
the militia during that time -- and that description fits a very large
majority of the people who called themselves militia members
during that time. (And I suspect you knew that was the intent of my
argument.)
So in the event of an insurrection or invasion that was beyond the
capability of the organized militia to handle I would expect the President
to issue an order for the unorganized militia to step forward.
The irony of that statement is that, given the behaviour and statements of
the self-styled "unorganized militia" to date, it's likely that they would
be the source of said insurrection.
The fact that the Supreme court has made certain rulings does not
obviate my right to share an alternate interpretation with millions of
citizens.
The fact that scientists have concluded that the Earth is round does not
obviate the Flat Earth Society's right to share an alternate interpretation
with millions of citizens either. That doesn't make them any less wrong.
My point (as, again, I suspect you were aware) is that a group of people
who are, I submit, a bit more qualified to interpret the
Constitution than you or I have repeatedly and consistently rejected the
interpretation of the Constitution that you put forward. To me, at least,
that constitutes compelling evidence that your proposed interpretation is
almost certainly wrong. -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
Even assuming that the phrase in the Bill of Rights is intended to limit
those who are eligible rather than to simply give a reason for the
inclusion of the 2nd Amendment (and I think that assumption is false)
[...]
According the the U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311 the definition of
militia is:
Note that the petitioner carefully neglects to quote the rest of
Section 311,
which clearly distinguishes between the "organized militia, which consists
of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and the "unorganized militia,
which consists of all members of the militia not members of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia"; the latter, not being "well-regulated", are
not included in the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia".
The U.S. Code is, of course, trumpted by
Article
II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that "The President
shall be commander in chief [...] of the militia of the several states" --
which means that unless you took orders from Bill Clinton last year, you
are not a member of the militia.
Further, under
Article
I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have power to [...] provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such
part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" --
which, combined with the preceding, strongly indicates that the militia was
meant all along to be interpreted as a military body. This is the
basis for the Supreme
Courtrulings
cited by the esteemed AC, ruling that the National Guard now fills the role
of the constitutional militia.
[And yes, I'm well aware that the NRA has become quite skilled in tying
these rulings in pretzel knots trying to argue that they don't mean what
they plainly say...]
The gun lobby has never won a Supreme Court case based on their
interpretation of the Second Amendment.[*] An unbiased observer would
conclude from this that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second
Amendment is wrong.
[*] And only one
federal
court case (out of dozens before and since that rejected its misguided
lead), which is currently under appeal. -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
Re:Im sorry to inform you....
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
If you had ACTUALLY watched the episode you would have seen them SHOOT
THE SHIELDS OF THE SHIP WITH THIER PHASERS, TAKING THEM DOWN. THEY THEN
BEAMED THEM THROUGH. THATS WHY IT WAS SO SUSPENSFUL, BECUASE THEY DIDNT
HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO IT!!!!! [...] And I dont sit on message boards 24-7
quarelling about useless details and facts. I HAVE A LIFE.
And the award for Ironic Comment of the Year goes to... -- #/usr/bin/perl require 6.0;
So you are replying to an author's response to a reader's review of that
author's analysis of a filmmaker and colabrative author's creative
statement about the human condition?
Slashdot Mirror
"Comic stripper"? What, you mean Omaha the Cat Dancer? That doesn't sound like the sort of "piece" she usually has... ;)
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Ah, the tired old "crying" attack. You're a member of the cult too, eh?
*sigh* For the 4,387,295th time, Al Gore did not claim to have invented the Internet.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Not necessary; that's covered automatically by the fact that they're using DeCSS (or some other CSS-decryption algorithm), which immediately makes them Evil Anti-Capitalist Thieving Pirates, just like those damn Napster users...
[this article is Smiley Captioned for the sarcasm-impaired]
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
No, he didn't.
Doesn't work if you just do it yourself; you've got to get the media to do it with you. Not to mention the Supreme Court.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Is anyone else beginning to suspect that Godwin's Law needs to be expanded to cover red-baiting (accusations of socialism and/or communism)?
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
"Yaaaay..."
(sheesh, I gotta do everything myself around here...)
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
*BZZZZT* Sorry, that urban legend is long since debunked. The Democrats did not subpoena Bork's video rental records; those records were published by a D.C. weekly newspaper -- and that paper was immediately denounced by the Democrats and left-wing groups like the ACLU.
Just doing my bit for historical accuracy...
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
No, they'll just make "Save the whales" a link to www.killbabyseals.com. Same difference.
Ah, so you admit that Microsoft is changing the content of my web pages (by adding content that I probably would not approve of, and making it difficult if not impossible for the average user to disable). This renders your attempted analogy to user style sheets (which only change the appearance of web pages, and which must be explicitly enabled by the user) somewhat disingenuous.
For now.
For now.
For now. In the Microsoft view, these are "bugs", which will doubtless be "fixed" in the release version. And as others have already noted, any "gain" to the user from customizing this "feature" can already be achieved more easily via the existing bookmark mechanism. Unless, of course, you meant customization via "add-ins" installed automatically by third-party sites, and the inevitable can of worms that would open...
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Technically, the statement you cite does not contain a double negative, since the two negatives are not in the same clause. It is analogous to the statement, "I didn't say he wasn't here", which is not equivalent to "I did say he was here"; I might, for instance, have made no statement at all concerning the alleged presence or absence of the unnamed gentleman in question.
</NITPICK>
On a more on-topic note, I observe that my wrists perversely didn't start hurting until after I'd read all the comments here...
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
In tcsh, at least, you can use a command like:
to enable the kind of completion you want. See "man tcsh" for further info.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
No, that's Stalinism. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by workers. Yes, Stalin did misleadingly describe his system as "socialist" or "communist, which has, as you say, led to these terms being widely, if incorrectly, used as "free floating negative words roughly comparable to 'bad' or 'satanic'."
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Have you read FAIR's Fear and Favor 2000 report? It seems to indicate that this sort of thing is a lot more widespread than you think:
Apparently not all journalists have your ethical fortitude.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Sounds kinda like what some TV networks have done/are doing with stuff like baseball games and the 2000 New Year's Eve thing: editing over billboards and other posted advertising shown on screen (even on live TV) and replacing them with fake billboards for their own network and other advertisers. I don't remember how much of an uproar there was when that happened; I wonder how much this will get.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
No, he didn't.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
? `Scuse me, where did you get "rich people are evil" out of my article? All I said was that, White House spin to the contrary notwithstanding, their proposed tax cut does disproportionately benefit the rich (yes, even in disproportion to how much tax they're paying).
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
But don't forget to factor in the inevitable cuts in government services due to the lost revenue.
Let me try an analogy: say we buy something together and split the payment 60-40. Then we get a partial refund, and I try to claim 90 percent of it, arguing that "Of course I should get more back, I paid more in the first place."
"But not that much more," you'd rightly object. And that's exactly our objection to Bush's tax cut: after everything is factored in (like the estate tax repeal that you skated around), the rich are getting back a bigger slice than they put in.
Hmm, how `bout a cut in the payroll tax? Funny how that never seems to get mentioned in tax-cut discussions, even though the large majority of Americans pay more in payroll tax than in income tax.
Yes, which is why they, and I, object to the rich trying to shift more and more of the tax burden off their backs and onto the backs of the poor and middle class.
No, they didn't. Inflation-adjusted tax revenues were down for several years after Reagan's 1981 tax cut -- and that in a growing economy, when inflation-adjusted tax revenues would be expected to increase.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Actually, in your scenario it is fair, since by your own numbers, that one guy paid 74 percent of the tax collected. The actual proposed tax cut plan would be more like that one guy paying in only 70 dollars (33 percent of tax collected) and still getting 40 dollars back (67 percent of the tax cut).
My point all along has been that if you count all of the proposed tax cut (including the estate tax repeal, which apologists consistently ignore), the tax break is not equal, because the rich get back a percentage larger than the percentage they paid.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
This is the big lie that conservatives keep repeating, desperately hoping to convince the poor and middle class that the government isn't screwing them over at the behest of the rich. The petitioner follows the so-called "liberal" media in repeating unchallenged the White House's deceptive numbers, which deliberately omit the effect of the proposed estate tax repeal that disproportionately benefits the rich. When the entire tax proposal is considered, the richest one percent, who pay 20 percent of all federal taxes, will receive at least 36 percent of the tax cuts -- some estimates put it as high as 43 percent.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Ooh, very deft slight-of-hand. The deceptive bit in this "analogy" is that the part about being fed corn is not in paragraph (a), but in a completely separate part of the farm rules that refers specifically to white swans. Remember, "unorganized" means not "well-regulated".
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I phrased that badly, though I'm inclined to read it as willful misinterpretation. Under Article II Section 2, someone who did not recognize Bill Clinton as his commander in chief from 1993 through 2000 was by definition not a member of the militia during that time -- and that description fits a very large majority of the people who called themselves militia members during that time. (And I suspect you knew that was the intent of my argument.)
The irony of that statement is that, given the behaviour and statements of the self-styled "unorganized militia" to date, it's likely that they would be the source of said insurrection.
The fact that scientists have concluded that the Earth is round does not obviate the Flat Earth Society's right to share an alternate interpretation with millions of citizens either. That doesn't make them any less wrong.
My point (as, again, I suspect you were aware) is that a group of people who are, I submit, a bit more qualified to interpret the Constitution than you or I have repeatedly and consistently rejected the interpretation of the Constitution that you put forward. To me, at least, that constitutes compelling evidence that your proposed interpretation is almost certainly wrong.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Note that the petitioner carefully neglects to quote the rest of Section 311, which clearly distinguishes between the "organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and the "unorganized militia, which consists of all members of the militia not members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia"; the latter, not being "well-regulated", are not included in the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia".
The U.S. Code is, of course, trumpted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that "The President shall be commander in chief [...] of the militia of the several states" -- which means that unless you took orders from Bill Clinton last year, you are not a member of the militia.
Further, under Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have power to [...] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" -- which, combined with the preceding, strongly indicates that the militia was meant all along to be interpreted as a military body. This is the basis for the Supreme Court rulings cited by the esteemed AC, ruling that the National Guard now fills the role of the constitutional militia.
[And yes, I'm well aware that the NRA has become quite skilled in tying these rulings in pretzel knots trying to argue that they don't mean what they plainly say...]
The gun lobby has never won a Supreme Court case based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment.[*] An unbiased observer would conclude from this that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong.
[*] And only one federal court case (out of dozens before and since that rejected its misguided lead), which is currently under appeal.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
And the award for Ironic Comment of the Year goes to...
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
In the immortal words of Sparky the Wonder Penguin, "If this gets any more post-modern, my brain is going to explode."
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
They must be using the same advertising company as Conquistador Coffee...
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;