War against one campaign not enough. We need to pay attention to who is behind the campaign, because for them, every campaign is nothing more than a learning experience under the belt.
The very institutions lobbying and campaigning for controlling the only (still) free medium and making its use depending on their approval should be dismantled. They are forces of oppression, control, fear and insensitive cruelty based on infinite greed.
When you say cybercrooks, do you include financial institutions that
1. Practice coputer-managed microtrading using the advantage of their high-availability data streams, proprietary software and huge capital (other people's money) to squeeze profit from the market without contributing anything positive to anybody or anything?
2. Create financial instruments and products with the only purpose to use legal loopholes for profit?
3. Use usury to create perpetual profit from everyone who borrows other perople's money from them, practically causing enslavement?
Yes, sometimes you "have" to accept those ads, choosing to put your readership's trust second to profit. And, sometimes your readers "have" to activate their ad blockers because the ads you accepted are unnecesserily distracting and infuriating. It's a simple equation in which you establish trust and don't sell out your relationship with your audience, and *then* request them to disable their ad blockers.
And maintain the trust.
If intrusive_ad_profit > loss_from_intrusive_ad_irritation is the only important thing for you, then, well, you're in it for the money only and you have no relationship. Your readers owe you nothing.
I'm perfectly fine with "corporation being a person" as long as if a corporation is sued, and loses, everyone in the corporation goes to jail, with sentence prorated to their decision-making power. Right now corporation is an immortal, invincible, un-accountable person with no morals, no compassion, unlimited resources and mandated to act with infinite greed as the only advisor. Such people are unsafe for human society.
And we love you for that. We are total whores for the lower priced lower quality crap your minimum wage employees will sell to us! And by buying it, we vote for you!
Thank you.... made me wish I had mod points. Pretty sure this will bubble up anyway. This essay addresses the principles behind conservatism / money "aristocracy" and I think covers some of the same forces that we see in corporations striving to define the rules of the game (laws) for everybody.
Finally, a *humane* weapon that also kills... If the crowd chooses to come closer or not move away from the advancing vehicle where the weapon is mounted, that's their choice!
Especially if you keep redefining the word. Simple as that.
What if this was never about winning a war (on a word) but rather redirecting attention from the war on human rights and personal freedoms (many of which defined in the Constitution everyone loves foaming about), in the interest of money-driven slavery and mass-mind control?
Yes, people default to sharing, that's human nature. Collecting all that private personal data is very easy, true. In a similar way all house locks are easily pickable, and all phone calls are easily tapped into.
Facebook could accommodate curious governments easily by providing "Yes, I want to share all my posts with government bodies and make them admissable in court as evidence." checkbox.
If that checkbox is left unchecked, no government representative has the right to read anything by the user, and nothing would be permissible in court as evidence, and, if proven to have used this evidence, the government would be liable.
Restricting our legal activities because of fear from our own public servants is not the way to go. Taking control over the activities of our public servants is.
Governments naturally grow, get corrupted and continuously demand more power. Running scared from them is not a solution.
What we see here is the overreaching arrogance of an organization blinded by the belief that they "own" something that can't be owned: others' right to share their products with an audience. Ironically, the show exists precisely because of all these big and little companies make an effort to show up, pay up, and display their products to an audience.
Now, the middlemen suddenly believe that they own the process of doing so, and not just the real estate of the showfloor.
It is crucial how the bullied companies react to this insanity. Ideally, big headlines revealing the evilness and stupidity of CES management, and appropriate lawsuits will provide CES with enough incentive to refrain from bullying their own (potential) clients in the future.
I can see how scared CES may be of the possibility of a parallel tech expo which they can not monetize on. Wouldn't that be a great idea? Lower participation threshold, more indie companies, diversity, and the possibility of fun with fewer constipated uptight suits in the room.
This decision shows both the arrogance of the decision makers and the compliance of the population.
It makes it clear that the studio decision makers see their customers (you and me included) as cattle, easily redirected with a carrot (the goodies, price discounts) and a rod (the aforementioned delay, buying laws etc.) And, they are right. There's no organized response to their decisions, just a statistical one. So when they run the numbers, they see they're getting what they want. Why be nicer when that will make them lose money?
A couple of people may exercise discipline to boycott such arrogance and oppression of choice. Not enough, though. We are no French farmers blocking the streets and bringing the country to a screeching stop every few months:)
Move on. or, Look, Boobies! or, Look, Tiger Woods! you know, Squirrel! says it all.
For some insight on suicide bomber culture, see Syriana. Extensive training and brainwashing for months. Similar to Army training... very methodical and efficient. Another similarity, the suicide bombers are the poor and desperate of their own country, their innocence and faith taken advantage of by people with their own agenda and ulterior motives.
How about a class action suit? The iPhone is advertized as a 3G device, on a 3G network with a fast internet connection and there's nothing informing the potential customers about 30+% dropped calls.
AT&T ought to be forced to unlock all iPhones they sold, waive the early termination fee for all iPhone users and have a large warning on all their promotion material saying that they can not guarantee consistent phone service anywhere, with realistic numbers for major metropolitan areas.
If they're not intending to invest in infrastructure and deliver on their promises, how about some f*ing integrity in exchange of my money? And a little competition in the market? Accepting an exclusive deal with a shitty network is a big sellout from Apple, too.
Slashdot Mirror
War against one campaign not enough. We need to pay attention to who is behind the campaign, because for them, every campaign is nothing more than a learning experience under the belt.
The very institutions lobbying and campaigning for controlling the only (still) free medium and making its use depending on their approval should be dismantled. They are forces of oppression, control, fear and insensitive cruelty based on infinite greed.
When you say cybercrooks, do you include financial institutions that
1. Practice coputer-managed microtrading using the advantage of their high-availability data streams, proprietary software and huge capital (other people's money) to squeeze profit from the market without contributing anything positive to anybody or anything?
2. Create financial instruments and products with the only purpose to use legal loopholes for profit?
3. Use usury to create perpetual profit from everyone who borrows other perople's money from them, practically causing enslavement?
Just wondering.
Slashdot high quality?
If there's quality, it comes from user comments, mostly as quality *entertainment*.
Like yours.
The articles are quite trollish and often misdirected.
Remember that in Vogue most of the editorials are actually advertorials.
Yes, sometimes you "have" to accept those ads, choosing to put your readership's trust second to profit. And, sometimes your readers "have" to activate their ad blockers because the ads you accepted are unnecesserily distracting and infuriating. It's a simple equation in which you establish trust and don't sell out your relationship with your audience, and *then* request them to disable their ad blockers.
And maintain the trust.
If intrusive_ad_profit > loss_from_intrusive_ad_irritation is the only important thing for you, then, well, you're in it for the money only and you have no relationship. Your readers owe you nothing.
Going public and going to be passed as a law for the public.
The fact that a few people are aware and pissed off does not mean that all of the people won't be governed by this new law soon.
"My apps, my contacts, my music and more importantly my life were back."
Where was your life during the last two months?! Associating having a life with having a gadget is pretty sad.
Try the outdoors, now with 100% surround sound and full-immersion 3D.
I think the issue is with trusting a service that is open to the subpoena laws and intelligence agencies of another country, period.
Google will supply your full email history if order3ed by a court. And, under the "patriot" act, most likely even if not.
Would you trust an email service provided by a country with a government you don't trust? China? North Korea? Iran?
Of course, having the government take that decision away from you is another matter... but still logical.
Iran is almost at war with the U.S. Nothing surprising here.
The lesson of the taser is that it's fun, fun, fun!
But then, maybe tasers can be used for revival? Letting the cops combine business with pleasure, at last!
This is not the place to brag about your fetish.
I'm perfectly fine with "corporation being a person" as long as if a corporation is sued, and loses, everyone in the corporation goes to jail, with sentence prorated to their decision-making power. Right now corporation is an immortal, invincible, un-accountable person with no morals, no compassion, unlimited resources and mandated to act with infinite greed as the only advisor. Such people are unsafe for human society.
I've got strip malls to build people.
And we love you for that. We are total whores for the lower priced lower quality crap your minimum wage employees will sell to us! And by buying it, we vote for you!
Thank you.... made me wish I had mod points. Pretty sure this will bubble up anyway. This essay addresses the principles behind conservatism / money "aristocracy" and I think covers some of the same forces that we see in corporations striving to define the rules of the game (laws) for everybody.
He's our president, but let's not forget that like the rest of the members of the U.S. political circus, he serves big money first.
If he didn't, he wouldn't be president, simple as that.
As IP seems to be the next gold, expect to pay more and more for freshly fenced off Imaginary Property.
Finally, a *humane* weapon that also kills... If the crowd chooses to come closer or not move away from the advancing vehicle where the weapon is mounted, that's their choice!
Unfortunately the ones excited about inventing ways to kill others are also more likely to end up with the most resources.
What would our budget be like if there was $0 for military spending?
Infinite greed is not the best advisor, no matter how much the 1% ultrarich "aristocracy" tries to brainwash it into the 99% of the population.
Especially if you keep redefining the word. Simple as that.
What if this was never about winning a war (on a word) but rather redirecting attention from the war on human rights and personal freedoms (many of which defined in the Constitution everyone loves foaming about), in the interest of money-driven slavery and mass-mind control?
Now, put *this* in your pipe and smoke it :)
Or, wake up and get off the grid.
Ship the ice cream in liquid form, then use liquid nitrogen to freeze it. Like at burningman. Mmmmmmm!
Yes, people default to sharing, that's human nature. Collecting all that private personal data is very easy, true. In a similar way all house locks are easily pickable, and all phone calls are easily tapped into.
Facebook could accommodate curious governments easily by providing "Yes, I want to share all my posts with government bodies and make them admissable in court as evidence." checkbox.
If that checkbox is left unchecked, no government representative has the right to read anything by the user, and nothing would be permissible in court as evidence, and, if proven to have used this evidence, the government would be liable.
Restricting our legal activities because of fear from our own public servants is not the way to go. Taking control over the activities of our public servants is.
Governments naturally grow, get corrupted and continuously demand more power. Running scared from them is not a solution.
What we see here is the overreaching arrogance of an organization blinded by the belief that they "own" something that can't be owned: others' right to share their products with an audience. Ironically, the show exists precisely because of all these big and little companies make an effort to show up, pay up, and display their products to an audience.
Now, the middlemen suddenly believe that they own the process of doing so, and not just the real estate of the showfloor.
It is crucial how the bullied companies react to this insanity. Ideally, big headlines revealing the evilness and stupidity of CES management, and appropriate lawsuits will provide CES with enough incentive to refrain from bullying their own (potential) clients in the future.
I can see how scared CES may be of the possibility of a parallel tech expo which they can not monetize on. Wouldn't that be a great idea? Lower participation threshold, more indie companies, diversity, and the possibility of fun with fewer constipated uptight suits in the room.
This decision shows both the arrogance of the decision makers and the compliance of the population.
It makes it clear that the studio decision makers see their customers (you and me included) as cattle, easily redirected with a carrot (the goodies, price discounts) and a rod (the aforementioned delay, buying laws etc.) And, they are right. There's no organized response to their decisions, just a statistical one. So when they run the numbers, they see they're getting what they want. Why be nicer when that will make them lose money?
A couple of people may exercise discipline to boycott such arrogance and oppression of choice. Not enough, though. We are no French farmers blocking the streets and bringing the country to a screeching stop every few months :)
Move on.
or, Look, Boobies!
or, Look, Tiger Woods!
you know, Squirrel! says it all.
Don't feel forced to force kids to do anything. You can also teach them, create a routine, educate them, make a game out of it.
Being forceful lacks imagination.
For some insight on suicide bomber culture, see Syriana. Extensive training and brainwashing for months. Similar to Army training... very methodical and efficient. Another similarity, the suicide bombers are the poor and desperate of their own country, their innocence and faith taken advantage of by people with their own agenda and ulterior motives.
How about a class action suit? The iPhone is advertized as a 3G device, on a 3G network with a fast internet connection and there's nothing informing the potential customers about 30+% dropped calls.
AT&T ought to be forced to unlock all iPhones they sold, waive the early termination fee for all iPhone users and have a large warning on all their promotion material saying that they can not guarantee consistent phone service anywhere, with realistic numbers for major metropolitan areas.
If they're not intending to invest in infrastructure and deliver on their promises, how about some f*ing integrity in exchange of my money? And a little competition in the market? Accepting an exclusive deal with a shitty network is a big sellout from Apple, too.