1. The Fish PC is designed to fool people into believing it is an iMac: I think not. No one is going to go out, buy a Fish PC, bring it home and say, "What the $%#@ is this %^&*ing Windows doing on here? I wanted a Mac, it should run Mac OS!" No, although a convergience of the Mac OS look and feel for the KDE environment, plus the Fish PC appearance might theoretically convince people of this, it would only happen if it was marketed dishonestly. This is for IBM-clone PC owners with "candy PC" envy, "I want my PC to look like candy too!" Unfortunately, since the very theoretical possibility that someone could try to market these (to very uninformed consumers) as iMacs is the the reason they will state to a judge as to why this PC shouldn't be sold.
2. The actual reason they are suing: They don't want anyone else making a PC that looks as cool as theirs.
I'm not sure about this one. If I come out with a cool new desk, that looks cool but isn't otherwise particularly special, can I stop people from making knockoffs? Can Nintendo sue the Digimon people (or Digimon sue Pokemon, I need to check the chronology) because it's horning in on their "collect cute monsters" style of gaming? Can Wizards of the Coast sue Lord British for ripping off the D&D theme? Would we want them to be able to?
I think it all depends on the law. If the law says, "you can Copyright/Patent the look of a PC" then if Apple filled out all the correct paperwork, I'm guessing Apple wins. If they are trying to sue them based on the, "They're fooling people into thinking it is a genuine iMac," then they are being disingenuous, I think, and may win but should lose.
Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively killfrom the APA Journal article
This is a false statement, if I am to believe that the Wired Article, then Doom is used by the military to teach teamwork:
Barnett looks like he's explained this one before. "Marine Doom, as you saw, is not just a twitch game. The way you get through a Marine Doom scenario and survive is through teamwork and listening to your fire team leader and doing what you're supposed to...."
"It's about repetitive decision making," Snyder swiftly interjects. Snyder's habitual deference - even off-duty, he calls his friends sir - doesn't always extend to allowing Barnett to finish his sentences. "We're trying to get these things ingrained by doing them over and over, with variations. A real firefight is not a good time to explore new ideas."
"You also saw how everyone was absorbed," Barnett adds. "That's another part of it. Kids who join the marines today grew up with TV, videogames, and computers. So we thought, how can we educate them, how can we engage them and make them want to learn? This is perfect."
Like all the media, starting with Grossman, this report has taken a military experiment in teaching teamwork and turned it into a sinister government program to destroy the morals of young soldiers. Since the researchers involved in the project started with this bias, I think we can safely conclude that they are looking at this from a perspective of "violent video games are evil, how can we prove it?"
The psychological profession long ago decided that the road to power and political relevance was to reject the Aristotilean idea of catharsis and instead follow the Platonic idea that "the poets should be banned from the Republic because they get the people all stirred up." Otherwise, they won't get invited to testify on Capitol Hill or TV talk shows.
There are some counter articles out there today that everyone should also read:
I think the big question that everyone needs to ask themselves is who better serves American interests, jurists, or psychologists? I agree with R. A. Heinlein (who used to get guff from amateur psychologist when he was writing his juvenile novels, Red Planet, and others) that the psychological profession is full of charlatans and quacks. Of course, with the current low regard the First Amendment and the entire Constitution is held in in this country, I don't expect my opinions to hold much weight.
Just get a Hotmail account to register for spam generating stuff, then _never_ use it as a legitimate Email address. (I.e. get a different Webmail account to do Webmail, if that's what you want.)
Second, if you're not making much money, at the very least you can have respectability. Calling people up and disturbing them in their homes looking for a sale is far beneath working at McDonalds or a similar establishment - and as far as I know, _they_ are almost always hiring.
When I was poor, I refused to take telemarketing jobs, but from my recollection they paid considerably better than McDonalds. The main thing you have to recognize is that the callers may not make any money... often the slimeballs running the business will just skip out on their boiler room with the money.
Unfortunately, there are also, however, a significant number of legitimate companies that do this kind of thing. (A good example is my credit card company.) I much prefer spam to telemarketers. Actually, the best way to handle telemarketers is not to vent and hang up, it's to keep them on the line as long as possible without buying anything. In this case, you may cost them a sale or two, which is far more important to them than some creative obscenities. Of course, I susapect most people (like my Dad) who take the "creative obscenity" approach really just feel like venting and harming the immediate cause of their discomfort, rather than harming the business itself.
Now the ACLU is in a position where they actually have to *defend* one of the industries (see the mattel articles in YRO) that they have very recently been trying to defend the people of this nation against[censorware]. What I don't get is why it either has to be censorware or censorship? IMO neither is acceptable under the first ammendment to the constitution.
Perhaps you are not aware of recent changes to the First Amendment enacted by the Supreme Court, see this article for details:
Second, five justices also agreed that a form of expression -- in this case, totally nude dancing -- may be banned outright because of the "secondary effects" it has in promoting crimes such as alcohol abuse and domestic violence in the surrounding neighborhood. Souter, however, asserted that government must offer some evidence that these secondary effects will flow from the expression and that its statute will alleviate them.--quote from "Kandyland decision a new First Amendment landmark," by Tony Mauro on Freedom Forum
Missing from the above quote is the fact that David Souter was the only one of the justices who believed that you should have to prove "secondary effects." Of the remaining justices:
1.Scalia and Thomas: Basically said that the government can ban whatever you want if it is supporting "public morals."
2.O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer: Basically said that as long as the government asserts negative secondary effects as an excuse, they can ban whatever they want.
3. Stevens and Ginsburg: Dissented, pointing out that this was basically the end of the First Amendment as we know it in the United States of America.
Essentially, the "secondary effects doctrine" of the Supreme Court currently is, "if someone thinks it might cause a crime, it can be banned for that secondary effect." Currently, the First Amendment has about as much teeth in it as the Second Amendment, years of packing the Supreme Court with far right conservatives has had it's desired effect, which was always to reduce the effectiveness of Constitutional arguments. (Conservatives have been upset by "activist courts" which basically used the Constitution to enact legislation, such as bussing and Roe v. Wade. So the goal of conservatives and the "strict constructionist" philosophy was to weaken the Supreme Court and give power back to the Congress.) If the CDA were proposed today, it might not just pass, it would probably also pass Constitutional muster with the current court.
I suspect that this is why the ACLU is trying to argue that "well, we have filters so we don't need to enact bans" because under the new Constitution, just the fact of the First Amendment no longer protects you from being censored. It's a brave new world.
I hope people will consider this in the next election.
Hmm, It's always really interesting when someone who has lived a sheltered life, who thinks he/she understands words like heartbreak and predation responds to something like this. It's sort of like people who think they can't be conned. You can only go on believing that until you are conned. Everytime you trust another person, you open yourself up to being preyed upon. If you are lucky, you only open up to decent people who won't take advantage of you. If you are unlucky you get ripped off in a "love con."
Cheryl had something valuable, something icee wanted. It is obvious that if the story really played out the way it seems to have, she was a notch on his belt and a sexual experience to store away for the future. Of course she shouldn't have committed suicide, but should he have done this to her? Although, from some cultural perspectives that would allow her to hold on to her honor. No, and just because he hasn't been punished for his crime (which may not fall into the realm of law) doesn't mean he shouldn't have to suffer for it.
This guy pretended to care about her to get something from her, and then dropped her when he got it. It isn't helpful to anyone to allow a creature like this to go on in the world, unmarked and unscathed feeling no remorse for his actions.
Actually, the most disturbing thing about this story, to me, is how close it is to the famous opera, Madame Butterfly it's almost the exact same story. I liked it much better when it was just an opera.
I wish she hadn't killed herself, because that makes the nasty effects of one bad experience permanent. If she had survived it, she might've had a bright future. So, I would like to let anyone who has been used that it will get better and you can survive it. If you survive long enough, you may even get even, or have a chance to forget the thing because it becomes irrelevant. But this does not give people the right to use other people, it would be a really stupid world that allowed a guy like this to get away with no sanctions.
If I had been her, I wouldn't have committed suicide, I'd have followed the road of Hell and chosen vengeance over honor.........
It's a sad story, chat's are dangerous that way (so are MUCKs, I speak from bitter personal experience. Still, I have the experience to thank for turning me into the hard-hearted, misanthropic loner I am today, so I'm happy I went through it.)
Well, for an appropriate quote, "I certainly hope someone stabs him [icee] in the eye."
Maybe he'll get sued into oblivion by the kid and his Dad. That would be some justice, better than none.
(Incidentally, for those who think I'm being a little hard on icee when I've never met him, let me just say, "I know his type." )
I agree with this comment, if you can't come up with a reason to mod someone down you shouldn't do it.
On the other hand, it looks to me like OOG was hit with the troll tag by someone who doesn't understand his art, so eliminating the overated tag wouldn't help in this instance.
The overrated tag seems mainly used as a way to "get even" with people on Slashdot who you don't like. (Especially people who have the affront not to check their "no score" box.)
I'm actually more interested in the relative intelligence of dinosaurs compared to other animals. I don't believe they were as non-intelligent as they were portrayed in many of the science fiction stories I've read. Of course, we won't really know this until we start breeding them in captivity...
... stupid, confusing marketing slogan backfires on Sun microsystems.
Since the average reaction of most non-technical people to the whole dot-in-dot-com things was, "Wha..." and the average reaction of most technical people was "$#%^ing inane market gabble" they must be really irritated that it backfired on them. I didn't even know what that marketing slogan actually meant until I read this article. (Chastise me if you like, I just don't research stupid marketing slogans. I just said, "Right, the dot in.com, sure, whatever..." I realize it's probably some kind of sin in the Church of the Subgenius, but then I'm a minion of Cthuhlu anyway, so that isn't that important.)
I'm sure they will both be fine machines, but I think people here who are Linux zealots (and I'm guessing there are probably some around) should appreciate the fact that IBM seems to be very serious about Linux, and even if it's running AIX now, they may switch in the future.
Besides, I like the scary black IBM Netfinity we have in our office. It came sans operating system, too. Nearly drove the Windows guy in the office nuts (he tried to install NT on it), I finally got a Linux up on it. I wish they had shipped it with OS/2 though, I've always wanted to try that fabled OS...
Hmm, what is it running? Is it AIX? The article doesn't seem to say... You know, it _could_ be running Linux.
AOL User = Person blind to their own self-interest.
I mean, AOL actually used Trojan Horse marketing.
If David L. Smith does it, it's a crime, if AOL does it, it's protecting their market.
A person using AOL is a person who needs to be saved. So just as we technically proficient people can tell M$ users to get a real operating system, we should tell AOL users we care about to get a real ISP.
I'm just glad even the least technical, most computer-phobic members of my family already are using a real ISP. (It was a better deal at first, and now they are just more used to it. My Mom would never switch from Sunline.net, and as she often reminds me hintingly, she's old enough to be a grandmother.)
Ok, that is a good point. I suppose the fact that I think it is a ridiculous law blinded me to the fact that the guy did "knowingly" link.
I still think it was a draconian way of enforcing a bad law, but I'm willing to believe that a person who is ignorant of what was on a site wouldn't be given the same kind of treatment as this guy... provided he/she was able to prove that negative. It strikes me, though, that it is really tough to prove a negative, and that in such a case it would be guilty until proven innocent. While I realize that innocent until proven guilty is an American concept, I do think it's reverse is a harsh system of juris prudence to live under.
I knew this would happen, and I'll try to find the article on it, but it was published on more than one Website fairly recently. Unfortunately, these were video game Websites, and searching their archives is a chore, but I'll try...
Ok, here's one, Japanese Game Makers File Suit, it's from 1998. It may after you lived there that they made it illegal, or just after that they decided to crackdown on it. I suppose it is also possible that this article is a hoax, but I'm guessing it's legit because I remember seeing it more than one place when it came out.
Actually, it would be better to get a tool for eliminating the _pathetic_ "mask" censorship that the Japanese government forces all artists (in theory) and pornographers (in theory) to put over "naughty" parts in their pictures.
Er... not that I've ever actually seen an ecchi or hentai picture in a Japanese artbook or video, of course, but I heard that they force them to put this computer masking (which you sometimes see on TV shows over mob informants faces). Really, I've never actually seen any ecchi photos or drawings, I don't even know what the letter H means in Japanese. ^_-
Of course, unless they also force their citizens (a la Australia) to install filtering software on their computers, I don't see how they can prevent them from seeing this kind of stuff. I'll never understand why a country in which "love hotels" and "soaplands" are such institutions has such a problem over what people can draw or take pictures of...
...a creative and intellegent citizenry... controlled by a nasty, repressive, corrupt and unethically pro-corporate government.
It's also illegal to sell used video tapes and video games in Japan, so, basically, I think it is more or less the kind of corporate Hell the Multinationals want to turn the US into. We're still ahead of Japan in this area, our corrupt, unethically pro-corporate government still takes baby steps toward destroying our freedom... (See Article) where it seems the Japanese government already thinks freedom is for corporations and the government, not people.
I feel sorry for the citizens of Japan, who produce some of my favorite creative works, that they have to live under such an evil government.
..do not exist, they were bit players in an event which was orchastrated and encouraged by the media. Yes, there were two killers, but they do not resemble the image that the media pushes at us.
The impression we get of them from the media are not real, they are cardboard cut outs meant to represent "the teenaged menace" and allow for a crackdown the like of which America has never seen.
Jon Katz Hellmouth stories weren't about two sociopaths who went on a killing spree, they were about people who were victimized in its aftermath. They aren't about a town Littleton or a school called Columbine, they are about media generated illusions designed to push a repressive political agenda.
It is irrelevant that today is the anniversary of Columbine save to those directly affected by the tragedy. Did anyone notice the anniversary of Jonesborough, Arkansas or Paducah, Kentuky? Not in the mainstream media, at any rate, they've decided the most useful instrument for their statist agenda is the illusion they created around Columbine.
Perhaps Jon Katz is not the best person to write a book and expose this agenda, but at least he is doing something. I've seen very few people elsewhere tackling the spectre created by the media who used the victims of the Columbine tragedy for their own ends. I have watched the TeeVee news this week, and you know what I hear, "This just in, the anniversary of the Columbine Tragedy (a trademark of Time/Warner Inc.) is set to come up, are your children safe. We now go to a drill being conducted by the Lutz PD, in case a similar event happens here." (Cut to scenes of kids being walked out of a school with their hands over their heads, looking like criminals. I'm not sure it was actually Lutz, but it was one of the schools around here. Oh, and of course I satirically paraphrased the newsreader's words, but that was the gist of them.)
It shouldn't shock me that so many people posting to Slashdot these days are completely duped by the media, or hate Jon Katz so much, that they'll go on and on about how this announcement is "poor taste" but I doubt have written to their local News stations to express the same sentiments. However, it is important that these people are not the only voices heard or posts read.
Someday, maybe soon, I'm going to have kids. I do not want them thrust into some Orwellian nightmare just because a bunch of people are whining about "poor taste." If you want to whine about poor taste, why not try the conventional media? MSNBCVs Article on the Anniversary I'm sure they'll really care about your complaints, and store them in a strong metal container... a trash can.
I just want to make a point here about this kind of stuff. Recently, the Dragon Magazine archive was released on CD-Rom. In it, is a letter I wrote to Dragon Magazine back in the 80's or early 90's about the Sally Jesse Raphael's persecution of gamers. It never even occured to me to complain that I wasn't compensated by Wizards of the Coast for them publishing my letter in their archive, or to complain to Dragon magazine that they didn't compensate me for publishing the letter in their forum in the first place. I should point out that in those days Dragon magazine's forum section was almost identical to Slashdot, except it was edited for content... but there were even running gags, etc. It was a chance for people to share their opinions with the world, and I am glad that these opinions were preserved in the archive.
Another thing all the Katz-flamers and general malcontents should consider is the right to fair use. These comments were all made in response to articles Jon Katz wrote, and he has a right to respond to them or otherwise use them in his book. After all, without his articles, the comments wouldn't have existed in the first place. Free speech would be utterly impossible if a person didn't have the right to respond to things being said about him without compensating the people who were saying those things.
Do radio talk shows compensate the people who call in? Does the New York Times compensate people who write them letters which they publish? No.
If you hate Jon Katz, don't respond to his columns, because your comments are derivative works based on what he wrote. (This is one of the irritating things I notice about some kids on the Web, they'll draw a picture of a video game character and then claim to own that picture. Nope, whoever came up with the character in the first place owns the character and has rights to the drawing. Oh, and if you are a person who doesn't believe in intellectual property, I understand your point, but then you can't claim that someone is stealing something that you don't own.)
I really wish some people would learn how to block Jon Katz author if they don't want to see, and feel "compelled" to respond to his work.
You're over-trivializing the difficulty of selling GPLed code. With GPLed code all you really can sell is support and distribution. Trying to do development is a waste of time, because all of the other distros can benefit from your development work just as much as you can. You can't come out ahead by expending resources on development, so why waste them? It's a lot more profitable to do no development at all, and just incorporate whatever updates are produced by outside developers.
I've been thinking about how to make money from Copyleft software for a while now, and I've come up with something, and it is one way that commercial development of Copyleft software can be profitable. It can be profitable for hardware manufacturers. This is why I think it was a bright move of IBM to get into Linux software development, they don't want to sell Linux (they didn't even seem to want to sell OS/2, if the level of faith they demonstrated in it was any indication) they want to sell mainframes, servers and personal computers. In that case, they don't want to be held hostage by an external software company, but if they are focusing on hardware why worry about whether the software is free?
I look at it this way, what is an OS? An OS is like a hardware driver, just for the whole computer, not the individual device. I have yet to have to pay for drivers to make hardware devices I buy operational, except for the fact that I have to buy an OS to make my PC operational. Why? Because if the company doesn't give me a driver for their device, why would I buy it?
I predict that Linux is going to lead to some amazing things in hardware, because people who couldn't compel Micros~1 to develop for them will be able to just concentrate on making good hardware and not have to worry about getting a good OS that is compatible with most of the stuff out there.
Ok, even though it isn't my distribution of choice (I'm currently using a copy of Mandrake I got with my issue of Maximum Linux magazine) I do own a copy of the official Caldera distribution (I bought 2.2 because I wanted to see the Tetris install, and I got the 2.3 upgrade for free because it came out right away.)
Ok, 2.2, as you may or may not know, contained two CDs, on of which contained OpenLinux and proprietary software and the other of which contained source code. However, 2.3 contained the proprietary software on a seperate CD. I'm not sure if it was for space limitations or because of a GPL problem. (If you include free and non-free software on the same Linux CD, does that cause a problem with the GPL?)
At anyrate, I found the distribution to be inferior to the Mandrake I got with the magazine, despite the fact that it was more expensive. I assumed that was just because it was a business distribution as opposed to a fun distribution.
Guess I'll have to wait until a truly permanent storage medium becomes available.
Whatever happened to that old saw that plastic was bad for the environment because it never disintigrates and stays around forever? (I took some comfort in thinking that long after my body had withered away to dust my Sega CDs would still be around...)
This is actually pretty disturbing. But then, I would never, ever advocate digital media replacing the actual books (I just want to make that clear), I just thing that redundancy and backups in various formats are a good thing... just not as good as I thought.
We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head.
--from Anthem by Ayn Rand
Hmm, sentiments I'm sure the Librarian would share. Remember not to go to this forbidden link and read the book, right?
(I should note, I'm not an Objectivist, but I admire the way Ayn Rand shakes up the Establishment anyhow.)
I can't check out The Man who Laughs my library doesn't have it. The library at the school where I attend classes part time doesn't have it, the Englewood library doesn't have it, probably none of the libraries in the area have it, oh, Amazon seems to have a like new copy, for $125.00 (I may end up buying it, I haven't decided).
I strongly suspect that the Library of Congress has it, though... pity I can't go to Washington D.C. in the near future.
"It is isolating. It is a lonely thing." In contrast, "libraries are places, a community thing."
Ahem, the thing that has most isolated me from the world, from my family, and from other people are.... printed books (When I was a kid, often library books, nowaday more likely books I own.) far more than the Internet ever has. I'm willing to chat with my family while on the Internet, watch TV while on the Internet, talk on the phone while on the Internet, send Email on the Internet, post to Slashdot on the Internet... lot's of interaction with people. Hand me a good book, a real page turner, like a McCullough Masters of Rome series book, and just say good bye to me as I find a nice windowless crypt with good lighting and a solid door to keep out the world while I read. (Not that actual people in the room with me are actually there to me while I read, anyway, but sometimes they will physically pummel me to get my attention while I'm reading and that's a distraction.)
I was an isolated loner as a child (much as now) and if it wasn't a computer that was keeping me away from the world, you can bet it was a good book.
Hooray for books, and for the chance of rewarding, unsocial behaviour they provide. Since when are books a social activity anyway, has he never read Thoreau?
True, one of the tricks I use when writing programs for classes is to print out the source code at each benchmark so some horrible catastrophy doesn't destroy it. However, in this case it isn't the digital format that would preserve the books, but the distributed format. It is far harder to destroy a book when lots of people have it on their hard drives than it is when only one surviving copy is in the Library of Congress.
And good paper isn't always used. I'm going to have to re-buy my venerable copy of I, Robot by Asimov one of these days because the paper is so acidic that the book is self destructing. I doubt I'll ever have to replace my great works of literature CD-Rom, though, unless I'm careless (or future computers no longer have the ability to read it because it is in some proprietary format.)
Slashdot Mirror
2. The actual reason they are suing: They don't want anyone else making a PC that looks as cool as theirs.
I'm not sure about this one. If I come out with a cool new desk, that looks cool but isn't otherwise particularly special, can I stop people from making knockoffs? Can Nintendo sue the Digimon people (or Digimon sue Pokemon, I need to check the chronology) because it's horning in on their "collect cute monsters" style of gaming? Can Wizards of the Coast sue Lord British for ripping off the D&D theme? Would we want them to be able to?
I think it all depends on the law. If the law says, "you can Copyright/Patent the look of a PC" then if Apple filled out all the correct paperwork, I'm guessing Apple wins. If they are trying to sue them based on the, "They're fooling people into thinking it is a genuine iMac," then they are being disingenuous, I think, and may win but should lose.
The psychological profession long ago decided that the road to power and political relevance was to reject the Aristotilean idea of catharsis and instead follow the Platonic idea that "the poets should be banned from the Republic because they get the people all stirred up." Otherwise, they won't get invited to testify on Capitol Hill or TV talk shows.
There are some counter articles out there today that everyone should also read:
Lawmakers are uneducated about video game industry, panelist says
Illinois attorney general urges end to sales of violent video games to minors
And, most importantly: Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers
I think the big question that everyone needs to ask themselves is who better serves American interests, jurists, or psychologists? I agree with R. A. Heinlein (who used to get guff from amateur psychologist when he was writing his juvenile novels, Red Planet, and others) that the psychological profession is full of charlatans and quacks. Of course, with the current low regard the First Amendment and the entire Constitution is held in in this country, I don't expect my opinions to hold much weight.
Just get a Hotmail account to register for spam generating stuff, then _never_ use it as a legitimate Email address. (I.e. get a different Webmail account to do Webmail, if that's what you want.)
Unfortunately, there are also, however, a significant number of legitimate companies that do this kind of thing. (A good example is my credit card company.) I much prefer spam to telemarketers. Actually, the best way to handle telemarketers is not to vent and hang up, it's to keep them on the line as long as possible without buying anything. In this case, you may cost them a sale or two, which is far more important to them than some creative obscenities. Of course, I susapect most people (like my Dad) who take the "creative obscenity" approach really just feel like venting and harming the immediate cause of their discomfort, rather than harming the business itself.
Missing from the above quote is the fact that David Souter was the only one of the justices who believed that you should have to prove "secondary effects." Of the remaining justices:
1.Scalia and Thomas: Basically said that the government can ban whatever you want if it is supporting "public morals."
2.O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer: Basically said that as long as the government asserts negative secondary effects as an excuse, they can ban whatever they want.
3. Stevens and Ginsburg: Dissented, pointing out that this was basically the end of the First Amendment as we know it in the United States of America.
Essentially, the "secondary effects doctrine" of the Supreme Court currently is, "if someone thinks it might cause a crime, it can be banned for that secondary effect." Currently, the First Amendment has about as much teeth in it as the Second Amendment, years of packing the Supreme Court with far right conservatives has had it's desired effect, which was always to reduce the effectiveness of Constitutional arguments. (Conservatives have been upset by "activist courts" which basically used the Constitution to enact legislation, such as bussing and Roe v. Wade. So the goal of conservatives and the "strict constructionist" philosophy was to weaken the Supreme Court and give power back to the Congress.) If the CDA were proposed today, it might not just pass, it would probably also pass Constitutional muster with the current court.
I suspect that this is why the ACLU is trying to argue that "well, we have filters so we don't need to enact bans" because under the new Constitution, just the fact of the First Amendment no longer protects you from being censored. It's a brave new world.
I hope people will consider this in the next election.
Cheryl had something valuable, something icee wanted. It is obvious that if the story really played out the way it seems to have, she was a notch on his belt and a sexual experience to store away for the future. Of course she shouldn't have committed suicide, but should he have done this to her? Although, from some cultural perspectives that would allow her to hold on to her honor. No, and just because he hasn't been punished for his crime (which may not fall into the realm of law) doesn't mean he shouldn't have to suffer for it.
This guy pretended to care about her to get something from her, and then dropped her when he got it. It isn't helpful to anyone to allow a creature like this to go on in the world, unmarked and unscathed feeling no remorse for his actions.
Actually, the most disturbing thing about this story, to me, is how close it is to the famous opera, Madame Butterfly it's almost the exact same story. I liked it much better when it was just an opera.
I wish she hadn't killed herself, because that makes the nasty effects of one bad experience permanent. If she had survived it, she might've had a bright future. So, I would like to let anyone who has been used that it will get better and you can survive it. If you survive long enough, you may even get even, or have a chance to forget the thing because it becomes irrelevant. But this does not give people the right to use other people, it would be a really stupid world that allowed a guy like this to get away with no sanctions.
If I had been her, I wouldn't have committed suicide, I'd have followed the road of Hell and chosen vengeance over honor... ... ...
Well, for an appropriate quote, "I certainly hope someone stabs him [icee] in the eye."
Maybe he'll get sued into oblivion by the kid and his Dad. That would be some justice, better than none.
(Incidentally, for those who think I'm being a little hard on icee when I've never met him, let me just say, "I know his type." )
I mean, how exactly was he partly responsible for her suicide?
Oh, and one of the links is to a page which no longer exists.
On the other hand, it looks to me like OOG was hit with the troll tag by someone who doesn't understand his art, so eliminating the overated tag wouldn't help in this instance.
The overrated tag seems mainly used as a way to "get even" with people on Slashdot who you don't like. (Especially people who have the affront not to check their "no score" box.)
I'm actually more interested in the relative intelligence of dinosaurs compared to other animals. I don't believe they were as non-intelligent as they were portrayed in many of the science fiction stories I've read. Of course, we won't really know this until we start breeding them in captivity...
Since the average reaction of most non-technical people to the whole dot-in-dot-com things was, "Wha..." and the average reaction of most technical people was "$#%^ing inane market gabble" they must be really irritated that it backfired on them. I didn't even know what that marketing slogan actually meant until I read this article. (Chastise me if you like, I just don't research stupid marketing slogans. I just said, "Right, the dot in .com, sure, whatever..." I realize it's probably some kind of sin in the Church of the Subgenius, but then I'm a minion of Cthuhlu anyway, so that isn't that important.)
I'm sure they will both be fine machines, but I think people here who are Linux zealots (and I'm guessing there are probably some around) should appreciate the fact that IBM seems to be very serious about Linux, and even if it's running AIX now, they may switch in the future.
Besides, I like the scary black IBM Netfinity we have in our office. It came sans operating system, too. Nearly drove the Windows guy in the office nuts (he tried to install NT on it), I finally got a Linux up on it. I wish they had shipped it with OS/2 though, I've always wanted to try that fabled OS...
Hmm, what is it running? Is it AIX? The article doesn't seem to say... You know, it _could_ be running Linux.
I mean, AOL actually used Trojan Horse marketing.
If David L. Smith does it, it's a crime, if AOL does it, it's protecting their market.
A person using AOL is a person who needs to be saved. So just as we technically proficient people can tell M$ users to get a real operating system, we should tell AOL users we care about to get a real ISP.
I'm just glad even the least technical, most computer-phobic members of my family already are using a real ISP. (It was a better deal at first, and now they are just more used to it. My Mom would never switch from Sunline.net, and as she often reminds me hintingly, she's old enough to be a grandmother.)
I still think it was a draconian way of enforcing a bad law, but I'm willing to believe that a person who is ignorant of what was on a site wouldn't be given the same kind of treatment as this guy... provided he/she was able to prove that negative. It strikes me, though, that it is really tough to prove a negative, and that in such a case it would be guilty until proven innocent. While I realize that innocent until proven guilty is an American concept, I do think it's reverse is a harsh system of juris prudence to live under.
Um, not that I have any use for such a thing, of course, but I'm interested in it from intellectual curiousity...really...
I knew this would happen, and I'll try to find the article on it, but it was published on more than one Website fairly recently. Unfortunately, these were video game Websites, and searching their archives is a chore, but I'll try...
Ok, here's one, Japanese Game Makers File Suit, it's from 1998. It may after you lived there that they made it illegal, or just after that they decided to crackdown on it. I suppose it is also possible that this article is a hoax, but I'm guessing it's legit because I remember seeing it more than one place when it came out.
Er... not that I've ever actually seen an ecchi or hentai picture in a Japanese artbook or video, of course, but I heard that they force them to put this computer masking (which you sometimes see on TV shows over mob informants faces). Really, I've never actually seen any ecchi photos or drawings, I don't even know what the letter H means in Japanese. ^_-
Of course, unless they also force their citizens (a la Australia) to install filtering software on their computers, I don't see how they can prevent them from seeing this kind of stuff. I'll never understand why a country in which "love hotels" and "soaplands" are such institutions has such a problem over what people can draw or take pictures of...
It's also illegal to sell used video tapes and video games in Japan, so, basically, I think it is more or less the kind of corporate Hell the Multinationals want to turn the US into. We're still ahead of Japan in this area, our corrupt, unethically pro-corporate government still takes baby steps toward destroying our freedom... (See Article) where it seems the Japanese government already thinks freedom is for corporations and the government, not people.
I feel sorry for the citizens of Japan, who produce some of my favorite creative works, that they have to live under such an evil government.
The impression we get of them from the media are not real, they are cardboard cut outs meant to represent "the teenaged menace" and allow for a crackdown the like of which America has never seen.
Jon Katz Hellmouth stories weren't about two sociopaths who went on a killing spree, they were about people who were victimized in its aftermath. They aren't about a town Littleton or a school called Columbine, they are about media generated illusions designed to push a repressive political agenda.
It is irrelevant that today is the anniversary of Columbine save to those directly affected by the tragedy. Did anyone notice the anniversary of Jonesborough, Arkansas or Paducah, Kentuky? Not in the mainstream media, at any rate, they've decided the most useful instrument for their statist agenda is the illusion they created around Columbine.
Perhaps Jon Katz is not the best person to write a book and expose this agenda, but at least he is doing something. I've seen very few people elsewhere tackling the spectre created by the media who used the victims of the Columbine tragedy for their own ends. I have watched the TeeVee news this week, and you know what I hear, "This just in, the anniversary of the Columbine Tragedy (a trademark of Time/Warner Inc.) is set to come up, are your children safe. We now go to a drill being conducted by the Lutz PD, in case a similar event happens here." (Cut to scenes of kids being walked out of a school with their hands over their heads, looking like criminals. I'm not sure it was actually Lutz, but it was one of the schools around here. Oh, and of course I satirically paraphrased the newsreader's words, but that was the gist of them.)
It shouldn't shock me that so many people posting to Slashdot these days are completely duped by the media, or hate Jon Katz so much, that they'll go on and on about how this announcement is "poor taste" but I doubt have written to their local News stations to express the same sentiments. However, it is important that these people are not the only voices heard or posts read.
Someday, maybe soon, I'm going to have kids. I do not want them thrust into some Orwellian nightmare just because a bunch of people are whining about "poor taste." If you want to whine about poor taste, why not try the conventional media? MSNBCVs Article on the Anniversary I'm sure they'll really care about your complaints, and store them in a strong metal container... a trash can.
Another thing all the Katz-flamers and general malcontents should consider is the right to fair use. These comments were all made in response to articles Jon Katz wrote, and he has a right to respond to them or otherwise use them in his book. After all, without his articles, the comments wouldn't have existed in the first place. Free speech would be utterly impossible if a person didn't have the right to respond to things being said about him without compensating the people who were saying those things.
Do radio talk shows compensate the people who call in? Does the New York Times compensate people who write them letters which they publish? No.
If you hate Jon Katz, don't respond to his columns, because your comments are derivative works based on what he wrote. (This is one of the irritating things I notice about some kids on the Web, they'll draw a picture of a video game character and then claim to own that picture. Nope, whoever came up with the character in the first place owns the character and has rights to the drawing. Oh, and if you are a person who doesn't believe in intellectual property, I understand your point, but then you can't claim that someone is stealing something that you don't own.)
I really wish some people would learn how to block Jon Katz author if they don't want to see, and feel "compelled" to respond to his work.
I look at it this way, what is an OS? An OS is like a hardware driver, just for the whole computer, not the individual device. I have yet to have to pay for drivers to make hardware devices I buy operational, except for the fact that I have to buy an OS to make my PC operational. Why? Because if the company doesn't give me a driver for their device, why would I buy it?
I predict that Linux is going to lead to some amazing things in hardware, because people who couldn't compel Micros~1 to develop for them will be able to just concentrate on making good hardware and not have to worry about getting a good OS that is compatible with most of the stuff out there.
Ok, 2.2, as you may or may not know, contained two CDs, on of which contained OpenLinux and proprietary software and the other of which contained source code. However, 2.3 contained the proprietary software on a seperate CD. I'm not sure if it was for space limitations or because of a GPL problem. (If you include free and non-free software on the same Linux CD, does that cause a problem with the GPL?)
At anyrate, I found the distribution to be inferior to the Mandrake I got with the magazine, despite the fact that it was more expensive. I assumed that was just because it was a business distribution as opposed to a fun distribution.
Guess I'll have to wait until a truly permanent storage medium becomes available.
Whatever happened to that old saw that plastic was bad for the environment because it never disintigrates and stays around forever? (I took some comfort in thinking that long after my body had withered away to dust my Sega CDs would still be around...)
This is actually pretty disturbing. But then, I would never, ever advocate digital media replacing the actual books (I just want to make that clear), I just thing that redundancy and backups in various formats are a good thing... just not as good as I thought.
(I should note, I'm not an Objectivist, but I admire the way Ayn Rand shakes up the Establishment anyhow.)
I strongly suspect that the Library of Congress has it, though... pity I can't go to Washington D.C. in the near future.
I was an isolated loner as a child (much as now) and if it wasn't a computer that was keeping me away from the world, you can bet it was a good book.
Hooray for books, and for the chance of rewarding, unsocial behaviour they provide. Since when are books a social activity anyway, has he never read Thoreau?
And good paper isn't always used. I'm going to have to re-buy my venerable copy of I, Robot by Asimov one of these days because the paper is so acidic that the book is self destructing. I doubt I'll ever have to replace my great works of literature CD-Rom, though, unless I'm careless (or future computers no longer have the ability to read it because it is in some proprietary format.)