There is a bunch of reasons why artists don't neccesarily know what they're getting into when they sign a contract - and on top of that, when you're hungry, and you've got your once chance, and there is NO OTHER CHOICE, you might just sign anyway. On of the problems with capitalism - markets will eventually collapse to a monopoly situation (for various definitions of monopoly, I don't feel like being detailed).
Basically, I don't care. One of two things will happen: Either, a, people will prove to like TV enough that some enterprising person will find a buisness model for it (maybe all the good producers/script writers/actors will start working for PBS, out of the love of thier craft?) and TV will continue more or less untouched, but with less commercials (or different ones), or b) Everybody will stop watching TV, the industry will die, and we'll move on to something else. Neither one of these is any sort of earth-shaking problem that we should regulate against. In both cases, it's the market and the consumers making choices, which is how it should be. Either there is a market there, or there isn't. They can be pissed all they want, tough crap. I'm pissed that the dot-com crash (another buisness model built on incorrect and failing assumptions) makes it hard for me to have high-paying, easy work, but I'd never lobby for a law demanding, say, minimum 6-figure salaries for IT workers.
Oddly, I feel the same way about stuck up conservative rich people as you do about welfare queens. Nobody making more than 70k a year should be able to vote. Especially you. They should still have to pay taxes, though. Because god knows someone needs to, so we should make sure that the people who can't vote against are the ones bit in the ass.
(By the way, I'd be money that you're guilty of at least on felony. Most people are.)
the founding fathers would spit and die if they saw how many citizens were disenfranchised. Logically, anyone who can't vote (especially in states like Florida, where you are PERMANENTLY disenfranchised, not just while you're in jail) shouldn't have to pay taxes, be called up for national service, etc. No taxation without representation and all that.
Sorry. They are rights-trampling monoplists. I have a right to freely exchange and manipulate content that I've purchased or otherwise aquired - the infamous fair use. They want to remove this right from me. They are willing to flex unreasonable economic and political muscle to do so. Obviously, I'm not OWED content. But they aren't owed my money, either. But they get it - tax subsidies, the right to own my airwaves, control over content that violate all logical reasoning (I'm going to send you a signal, but you can't look at it. If you do, I'll have you thrown in jail), taxes on recording media.... I'd say they certainly owe me SOMETHING.
That is precisly one reason why we need to be scared - and why the huge, convoluted body of law we have in this country needs to be cleaned out and thrown away. When everyone is a criminal, they can prosecute anyone they want. Ever lived in a small town and had a bad personal enmity with one of the cops? Heck, or even a big town? They can make your life miserable, because EVERYONE is a criminal. You probably do at least 5 illegal things every day - more than that if you drive.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
Personally, I think it's totally ridiculous that we have special laws about cable theft. It's moronic. If you send signal at me, it's my option to do something with that signal (note: this doesn't mean physically splicing into someone elses line. Thats a different can of worms). Canda has a much more enlightened approach, at least about satellite which is the same concept. The cable companies, like everyone, like to soak you for as much as they can (I have a cable tuner in my TV. It doesn't work, so I need to rent a cable box (remote is seperate) from Cablevision. Every little bit adds up, you know? Like the phone companies of old, they want total control over the line, the content, and the devices. They want you to pay an extra fee for extra TVs in the same house. Why? It doesn't cost them anything more. There's no extra work involved. It's just me splitting a signal that they feed me. But they like money. And since there's practically no competition, they can do whatever they like.
Totally untrue. If you're using nearly any sort of non-basic javascript or DHTML, you have to write at least two totally different sets of scripts because of the differences in the object model. Thats totally aside from dealing with rendering differences or compensating for bugs in individual browsers. Sure, JS and DHTML and all that may be lame flash crap that shoulnd't be on web pages, but if the customer wants it....
The fact that you have repressed sexual issues that you can't get over doesn't mean your kids do. Trying to prevent your kids from seein pr0n is about the perfect way to make sure they want to see it. If you're reasonable about it, then they'll make thier own decisions about what they like and act accordingly. Since that's what they'll do once they move away from you (and what your 18 and 19 year old should be doing anyway), treating your children like real people and not like pets is doing them a favor and makes them more likely to be productive, useful citizens.
As for research... the internet is probably the greatest single research tool there is. Not just for factual information, which you have to be careful about, but also current events, opinions, all sorts of things. Books are great, but they can't compare with the volume of information available on the internet.
Finally, it's your choice to use NetNanny on your own computer, but the fact that it does not, and cannot operate with out both over and underblocking (see article) makes it unsuitable for public computers.
I'd totally agree except for three things: First, you aren't addressing anythign I said in my post:P. Second, punishing abuses when they occur isn't enough, if there's a consistent pattern of abuse - reforms and controls to remove the possibility or lessen the likelyhood of abuse is what's needed. For what it's worth, I feel there is currently far too little oversight of law enforcement as it is. Thirdly, when there is a historical pattern of abuse, and controls are enacted to limit that abuse, you don't then go and remove those limits and expect there to no longer be abuse.
I actually don't see the logical fallacies there. It's historical, provable fact that the FBI has been used as a politcal tool. It probably still is. Given that what Michael is saying is true, how is it a logical fallacy to state that, in the absence of controls, the FBI will once again become the presidents personal intelligence force? The second statement is hyperbole, and it's probably bad journalism because it's putting words into the Washington Post's mouth, but since this ISN'T A JOURNALISM SITE I don't see that theres some huge problem.
Re:The reason why the FBI is given broad powers
on
Surveillance Update
·
· Score: 2
Okay, I thought you were an intelligent person who disagreed with me, but now I see you're just a raving loonie.
"Racial Profiling" is LAW ENFORCMENT speak. It means "We target people who are of X race because we think they commit more crimes". And you know jack all about the ACLU, too. Point the first: You can say God Bless America whereever you want. Watch some news some time, you'll notice that our president is really fond of it. You can also say the pledge of allegience all you want. What you can't do is force someone else to do that, which is good, because I don't believe in your stupid fucking god and prefer that he not get brought up in conversations with me.
Re:The reason why the FBI is given broad powers
on
Surveillance Update
·
· Score: 2
Racial profiling is an assumption of guilt. When you're actively investigating a crime, and you have a suspect profile (assuming you created that profile from evidence and didn't just make it up), that's not racial profiling.
Monitoring a group, or assuming the group's guilt and limiting your investigation to them, either without a specific crime(preventive surveillance, like all the "terrorist" crap) or without supporting evidence, that's racial profiling. Like assuming that a black man in a nice car is a car thief. Or assuming that only middle-eastern men are terrorists, and limiting your investigation to them.
It sounds to me like you have some sort of chip on your shoulder about the ACLU - they aren't as reactionary as all that. They attempt to act as watchdogs when the government crosses the line, which it does rather more often than we'd like. Remember, they look out for YOUR rights too.
"Political Correctness" is a fine idea. It's take to a ridiculously silly degree by some moronic people, but there's nothing wrong with the idea that discriminating against people is bad. Racial profiling is inherently discriminatory - it's making a judgment based on race INSTEAD of actual evidence.
Jeez. People like you are one of the reasons our country is starting to suck so much. "Shut up and eat your gruel, citizen, you should expect to be exploited". Some of us don't think that it's proper to treat customers as little money-making machines. So what if it's naive to think that blocking my ISP from logging me guarantees my privacy? Just becase someone else might snoop on me, I should allow, ANYONE to do it?
Go live in some south american dictatorship where they approve of people like you and leave normal Americans alone.
Which I'm sure they did, since it was invented in a top secret military complex by people with strict security clearances. But since Einstein wasn't one of them, that has jack-all to do with it.
Yeah, but imagine the suprise when they go to recruit the high scorer and it's just some punkass kidd with a wallcheat and an aim bot.
Re:Fark-like Not Safe For Work
on
Google Experiments
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I think you may be the coolest person I ever met, because you used the phrase "grepping for inbound boobies". I need a bumper sticker of that or something.
Yeah, I agree, but I find people who enforce cookies where there's no techincal requirement for one suspicious. If they're doing it to aid in tracking repeat visits rather than just hits, fine, but the number of people who won't take the cookie won't be large enough to toss off the numbers. And a site that FORCES me to take a cookie, unless there's an obvious need, like personalized content, is probably a site I won't revisit.
Hear hear! Here's an example - someone wrote up a delphi module wrapper to zlib. It's a great, nicely written piece of code, but theres not a scrap of documentation. By the time I finished reading the source, figuring out what the new methods for the new streams did, which object I needed for my project, etc, I could have writting my own library. I probably should jot down what I worked up and send it back to the author....
Microsoft Press also publishes a magnificent book called "Writing Secure Code". Interestingly, the guys who write it (MS engineers) talk alot about how hard it is to force secure coding onto co-workers who don't give a shit.
If you truly think that we're acting in a totally moral, upright fashion, in both this "war" and in all the others, you either aren't paying attention or don't want to. This isn't about seeing the other side - it's about taking responsibility. We don't want to.
I don't agree with, or defend, Al-Qaeda. But I don't unilaterally agree with and defend America, either. Our actions are not totally moral. More than that, no matter what your personal outrage, don't think for a moment that one of the primary reasons for this war is the political power it gives to George W. and his handlers. Keep your eyes open. Learn to ask questions. Don't take things for granted.
I should also point out that your views on why it's okay for us to be killing people in Afghanistan (it's not just members of Al-Queada, you know) are one of the reasons people all over the world hate Americans, which is one of the things that leads to terrorist bombings. It's got jack-all to do with them hating our way of life.
A mistype on my part. No greater MILITARY context. Obviously there's a greater context, otherwise it's just a loony with a bomb, not a terrorist. The people who bombed the WTC were terrorists. The people we are fighing in Afghanistan (and the people we fought in Vietnam) are partisans.
Are they members of the same organization, with the same goals? Yes. But that doesn't really matter - the US has committed terrorist acts, and supported those who do, both officially and unoffically. That doesn't make the US a terrorist state, nor does it make our regular army terrorists.
You'll note that one of my distinctions between terrorists and partisans was the target focus - not civilian vrs military, since it's normal for military force to be directed against civilian targets, but targets of military worth vrs. targets of social worth. Military forces attempt to destroy an enemies ability to fight - this may include just killing them all, as with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist forces attempt to break the will of the enemy to fight by attacking targets of emotional and social importance, this does not neccesarily include killing people (although it generally does).
You may notice that I don't think that terrorism is neccesarily any more evil than any other form of warfare. I'm self-centered, and I hate people who attack things I care about more than I hate people who attack things I'm indifferent about. So are most Americans, and thats fine, but lets be honest about it, and not try to claim that we have some sort of moral high ground because "Al-Queda are murderers".
Slashdot Mirror
There is a bunch of reasons why artists don't neccesarily know what they're getting into when they sign a contract - and on top of that, when you're hungry, and you've got your once chance, and there is NO OTHER CHOICE, you might just sign anyway. On of the problems with capitalism - markets will eventually collapse to a monopoly situation (for various definitions of monopoly, I don't feel like being detailed).
Basically, I don't care. One of two things will happen: Either, a, people will prove to like TV enough that some enterprising person will find a buisness model for it (maybe all the good producers/script writers/actors will start working for PBS, out of the love of thier craft?) and TV will continue more or less untouched, but with less commercials (or different ones), or b) Everybody will stop watching TV, the industry will die, and we'll move on to something else. Neither one of these is any sort of earth-shaking problem that we should regulate against. In both cases, it's the market and the consumers making choices, which is how it should be. Either there is a market there, or there isn't. They can be pissed all they want, tough crap. I'm pissed that the dot-com crash (another buisness model built on incorrect and failing assumptions) makes it hard for me to have high-paying, easy work, but I'd never lobby for a law demanding, say, minimum 6-figure salaries for IT workers.
(By the way, I'd be money that you're guilty of at least on felony. Most people are.)
the founding fathers would spit and die if they saw how many citizens were disenfranchised. Logically, anyone who can't vote (especially in states like Florida, where you are PERMANENTLY disenfranchised, not just while you're in jail) shouldn't have to pay taxes, be called up for national service, etc. No taxation without representation and all that.
Sorry. They are rights-trampling monoplists. I have a right to freely exchange and manipulate content that I've purchased or otherwise aquired - the infamous fair use. They want to remove this right from me. They are willing to flex unreasonable economic and political muscle to do so. Obviously, I'm not OWED content. But they aren't owed my money, either. But they get it - tax subsidies, the right to own my airwaves, control over content that violate all logical reasoning (I'm going to send you a signal, but you can't look at it. If you do, I'll have you thrown in jail), taxes on recording media.... I'd say they certainly owe me SOMETHING.
That is precisly one reason why we need to be scared - and why the huge, convoluted body of law we have in this country needs to be cleaned out and thrown away. When everyone is a criminal, they can prosecute anyone they want. Ever lived in a small town and had a bad personal enmity with one of the cops? Heck, or even a big town? They can make your life miserable, because EVERYONE is a criminal. You probably do at least 5 illegal things every day - more than that if you drive.
Personally, I think it's totally ridiculous that we have special laws about cable theft. It's moronic. If you send signal at me, it's my option to do something with that signal (note: this doesn't mean physically splicing into someone elses line. Thats a different can of worms). Canda has a much more enlightened approach, at least about satellite which is the same concept. The cable companies, like everyone, like to soak you for as much as they can (I have a cable tuner in my TV. It doesn't work, so I need to rent a cable box (remote is seperate) from Cablevision. Every little bit adds up, you know? Like the phone companies of old, they want total control over the line, the content, and the devices. They want you to pay an extra fee for extra TVs in the same house. Why? It doesn't cost them anything more. There's no extra work involved. It's just me splitting a signal that they feed me. But they like money. And since there's practically no competition, they can do whatever they like.
Totally untrue. If you're using nearly any sort of non-basic javascript or DHTML, you have to write at least two totally different sets of scripts because of the differences in the object model. Thats totally aside from dealing with rendering differences or compensating for bugs in individual browsers. Sure, JS and DHTML and all that may be lame flash crap that shoulnd't be on web pages, but if the customer wants it....
As for research... the internet is probably the greatest single research tool there is. Not just for factual information, which you have to be careful about, but also current events, opinions, all sorts of things. Books are great, but they can't compare with the volume of information available on the internet.
Finally, it's your choice to use NetNanny on your own computer, but the fact that it does not, and cannot operate with out both over and underblocking (see article) makes it unsuitable for public computers.
I'd totally agree except for three things: First, you aren't addressing anythign I said in my post :P. Second, punishing abuses when they occur isn't enough, if there's a consistent pattern of abuse - reforms and controls to remove the possibility or lessen the likelyhood of abuse is what's needed. For what it's worth, I feel there is currently far too little oversight of law enforcement as it is. Thirdly, when there is a historical pattern of abuse, and controls are enacted to limit that abuse, you don't then go and remove those limits and expect there to no longer be abuse.
I actually don't see the logical fallacies there. It's historical, provable fact that the FBI has been used as a politcal tool. It probably still is. Given that what Michael is saying is true, how is it a logical fallacy to state that, in the absence of controls, the FBI will once again become the presidents personal intelligence force? The second statement is hyperbole, and it's probably bad journalism because it's putting words into the Washington Post's mouth, but since this ISN'T A JOURNALISM SITE I don't see that theres some huge problem.
"Racial Profiling" is LAW ENFORCMENT speak. It means "We target people who are of X race because we think they commit more crimes". And you know jack all about the ACLU, too. Point the first: You can say God Bless America whereever you want. Watch some news some time, you'll notice that our president is really fond of it. You can also say the pledge of allegience all you want. What you can't do is force someone else to do that, which is good, because I don't believe in your stupid fucking god and prefer that he not get brought up in conversations with me.
Monitoring a group, or assuming the group's guilt and limiting your investigation to them, either without a specific crime(preventive surveillance, like all the "terrorist" crap) or without supporting evidence, that's racial profiling. Like assuming that a black man in a nice car is a car thief. Or assuming that only middle-eastern men are terrorists, and limiting your investigation to them.
It sounds to me like you have some sort of chip on your shoulder about the ACLU - they aren't as reactionary as all that. They attempt to act as watchdogs when the government crosses the line, which it does rather more often than we'd like. Remember, they look out for YOUR rights too.
"Political Correctness" is a fine idea. It's take to a ridiculously silly degree by some moronic people, but there's nothing wrong with the idea that discriminating against people is bad. Racial profiling is inherently discriminatory - it's making a judgment based on race INSTEAD of actual evidence.
And yeah, I suspect you probably are racist.
And they're wrong, anyway, unless you only play each record once.
Go live in some south american dictatorship where they approve of people like you and leave normal Americans alone.
An ad for hitman services would be commercal speech, and therefore more regulated than private speech.
Which I'm sure they did, since it was invented in a top secret military complex by people with strict security clearances. But since Einstein wasn't one of them, that has jack-all to do with it.
Yeah, but imagine the suprise when they go to recruit the high scorer and it's just some punkass kidd with a wallcheat and an aim bot.
I think you may be the coolest person I ever met, because you used the phrase "grepping for inbound boobies". I need a bumper sticker of that or something.
Yeah, I agree, but I find people who enforce cookies where there's no techincal requirement for one suspicious. If they're doing it to aid in tracking repeat visits rather than just hits, fine, but the number of people who won't take the cookie won't be large enough to toss off the numbers. And a site that FORCES me to take a cookie, unless there's an obvious need, like personalized content, is probably a site I won't revisit.
Hear hear! Here's an example - someone wrote up a delphi module wrapper to zlib. It's a great, nicely written piece of code, but theres not a scrap of documentation. By the time I finished reading the source, figuring out what the new methods for the new streams did, which object I needed for my project, etc, I could have writting my own library. I probably should jot down what I worked up and send it back to the author....
Microsoft Press also publishes a magnificent book called "Writing Secure Code". Interestingly, the guys who write it (MS engineers) talk alot about how hard it is to force secure coding onto co-workers who don't give a shit.
I don't agree with, or defend, Al-Qaeda. But I don't unilaterally agree with and defend America, either. Our actions are not totally moral. More than that, no matter what your personal outrage, don't think for a moment that one of the primary reasons for this war is the political power it gives to George W. and his handlers. Keep your eyes open. Learn to ask questions. Don't take things for granted.
I should also point out that your views on why it's okay for us to be killing people in Afghanistan (it's not just members of Al-Queada, you know) are one of the reasons people all over the world hate Americans, which is one of the things that leads to terrorist bombings. It's got jack-all to do with them hating our way of life.
I think you rather missed the point of the rant. It obviously is NOT, no matter what legal fictions we made up, and should not be treated as such.
Are they members of the same organization, with the same goals? Yes. But that doesn't really matter - the US has committed terrorist acts, and supported those who do, both officially and unoffically. That doesn't make the US a terrorist state, nor does it make our regular army terrorists.
You'll note that one of my distinctions between terrorists and partisans was the target focus - not civilian vrs military, since it's normal for military force to be directed against civilian targets, but targets of military worth vrs. targets of social worth. Military forces attempt to destroy an enemies ability to fight - this may include just killing them all, as with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist forces attempt to break the will of the enemy to fight by attacking targets of emotional and social importance, this does not neccesarily include killing people (although it generally does).
You may notice that I don't think that terrorism is neccesarily any more evil than any other form of warfare. I'm self-centered, and I hate people who attack things I care about more than I hate people who attack things I'm indifferent about. So are most Americans, and thats fine, but lets be honest about it, and not try to claim that we have some sort of moral high ground because "Al-Queda are murderers".