Snowbirds, Canadians who go to the southern states [florida] for the winter.
BAH! Any Canadian who flees from the cold is no Canadian at all! Snickering at visiting American relatives for putting on big-ass parkas when its only -10 is part of what being Canadian is all about!
So would most of the provinces. I'm still irritated by that, especially since we won't even get to see it unedited when we buy it on disc. And is 18+ really that bad a thing for a movie to get stuck with?
No, I still blame the censor. But I'm one of those people who also think that anyone making it easier for someone to do something is at least partially responsible (without reducing the blame on the party actually commiting the act).
This isn't just funny, its a real possibilty for any site that uses any shrinkwrapped software in the near future if the UCITA gets widely adopted. I don't suppose slashdot is using any commercial software, but many other sites are using something, somewhere in their system.
And what if they decide to track down my negative comment on/. to me, and turn off my software?
1) Annoying self-righteous semi-public figure decides to spearhead labeling initiative to "protect the children!"
2) Evil mega-retailer sees oportunity to maintain public image of "the family-friendly" store, refuses to carry any music bearing such labels.
3) Record executive scum say "Ah, crap. Wal-Mart sells a very large percentage of our product. We better convince "the talent" that they have to change the lyrics."
4) Many artists, not in a position to argue with their record company submit. A few refuse, and take the sales hit.
If you hand a loaded gun to someone who is likely to use it to murder someone, you're at least partially responsible. Making it easy for major retailers to censor music is simply a more roundabout way of doing it yourself.
You can say "don't shop at Wal-Mart then", which is fine (I don't, and I won't), but the reality is, many people shop mainly at Wal-Mart, and they sell enough product that the record companies are inclined to listen. And much like corporate-controlled media, it leads to self-censorship, because the artists know that the sticker will affect sales.
Huh. I read 1984 at that age. Totally enthralled me. I spent a seriously large amount of time thinking about what I'd been reading, and it infact started me developing my philosophy and politics. (Of course, they've evolved quite a lot since then. I've moved past my doubt that maybe a controlled, happy populace is the best thing overall.)
I thought N 5.0 was supposed to be mozilla? Am I just clueless (high probability) or has something changed?
Ah well, 6 should be a ways off. Just make 5 able to run without crashing all the time. At this point, I'd use IE (or neoplanet) if I could get used to the different interface.
Why not just have a direct democracy? Well, obviously, because every person doesn't have the time to be remotely informed on every vote that takes place, nor is it feasable (yet) for such a system to be implementable. That's why candiates are supposed to have clear platforms. It allows the public to pick who they think will most accuratly represent their desires.
I see no problem with Senator Smith always voting however Religious Leader Jones tells him to, as long as he announced during his campaign that he would do that, so the voters knew what they were getting themselves into when they voted for Smith. I wouldn't have a problem with this either. Of course, politicians don't announce much of anything as far as what their actual intentions are.
Your hypothetical fails to consider that Dr. King was not making his speeches as an agent of the church, but as a man who felt this was the right thing to do. Also, their is a difference between being convinced by the arguement of a religous leader, and doing what he says, merely because he says so.
I expect a Senator Smith to vote along the lines of what the public (especially those that voted him in) feel is appropriate. It is normal for one's religious beliefs to effect one's morality and philosophy, but the Senator should not be voting based on what the leader of his particular religion says. That's a major part of seperation of Church and State. It keeps the pope (or other religous leader) from controlling the state by making it clear how his followers are supposed to vote on issues.
Then I hereby issue a request for someone, anyone, who is capable of addressing the content of a statement rather than worrying over who the author is, and if the can spell perfectly.
He probably doesn't know more about the group than any other member of the group (but he might. He probably has email discussions with more of us than you or I, or most anybody else in the group) But I don't understand the "you're just an outsider, what could you know about us?" attitude that you (and others) have about Katz. He reads the same articles and comments you and I do. And he at least realizes that not every member is the exact same as he is. You seem to think that you know the group pretty well, or is that an imperial "we" your using there?
OK, I'm just going to comment on some of the posts I see here, and then on what Katz had to say.
Before blathering (semi)mindlesly about the actual article, I'm going to use what appears to be a Slashdot requirement. I'm going to bitch and moan about other posters. I see at least four top level posts that consist of someone bitching that they're being forced to read Katz related stuff. OK, so maybe the cookie's didn't work perfectly, and the articles are showing up on the main page. Guess Andover or Katz himself sent someone over to force the poster to read and then reply to the article. How evil! If you don't want to read it, then don't. Quit posting about how it shouldn't exist. Desipite what you believe, you are no more the voice of Slashdot than Katz. Inconceivable as it may be to you, some people don't share your views, opinions, or backgrounds. Let us read the article in peace.
Katz may not consider his writing "stark" but I would say it is somewhat dry. It does tend to be long, and his writing style can make it seem longer than it is, but their _is_ content there (contrary to what some readers seem to think). Katz' mention of writing for Rolling Stone and New York magazine was news to me (I've not been here from the start - so feel free to ignore my opinions too). I don't know why this seemed to iritate so many posters. He's making a point, not just screaming "I've been published! Worship me now!" (Maybe these posters feel that writers should pretend they've never been published?)
A lot of the posters seem to dislike Katz' response to Q*bert's question. Yes, he got defensive at first, and I don't blame him. He does a good job explaining why he writes the way he does here, even if he does go over ground he's covered before. (But for newcomers, it helps to find out who he is) He's right about Slashdot readers not all being tech-gods too. (I myself am running Win98 because I couldn't get the damned RedHat install that I dl'd and burned to work off either CD drive.)
jd's question, and Katz reply didn't much interest me. I'm a socialist, and pretty firm in my desire for government to keep control of corporations. Libertarians strike me the same as Anarchists: people who really haven't thought about all the consequences.
swordgeek's question came off kind of condescending to me. I've known a few people who have a similar "form is more important than content" attitude, and basically gave up on trying to have intelligent conversations with them. I've seen a couple.sig's to the effect of "spelling and grammer mistakes left in for those without the ability to think about the message" Professional writers have editors. Catching spelling and glaring grammatical errors is what they're for. If the message is clear, the grammer's good enough.
A poster said that Katz called himself "rare". Since it was actually Signal 11 who said Katz was rare, I wonder if there really are people who so need to abuse Katz as to skim for something they can act indignant about as quickly as possible... Signal 11's question about the hostility is interesting. Since he's one of the few posters who insists on being loudly abusive every time something by, or about Katz gets posted, he probably doesn't realize that there are only a few posters who seem to have an unhealthy amount of hate for Jon.
Katz' response to the first part of Skyshadow's response seems to have drawn some more flames. What the hell else would you call someone who rants and raves and flames and swears at someone for little or no good reason except immature? I don't agree with Katz' desire for a more moderated medium, but at least the answer is interesting.
I'd have to say I'm one of the anti-Christian slashdot readers Simeon2000 mentioned. I've read about and seen too many horrible things come from Christianity, and especially Catholicism. While many of the people I know (especially those past 30) believe in the Christian god, and the more benevolent teachings therof, almost all of the people I know who are activly involved in a formal religion are not people I care to spend time near, and most are people that I can activly dislike for being similar to missionaries of old, pushing their beliefs down the throats of others. I don't like people telling me how to live my life, won't accept my government doing so, and will actively resist someone telling my government to do so.
There. Now who's first to bitch about my spelling, grammer, and the length of my post?
Heh. Graphic novels, eh? I love it when people try to justify comics as graphic novels... The only comics that actually are "graphic novels" are the ones that are squarebound, and trade paperbacks don't count (that's several issues collected together, like what most people read when they read the Tick)
Not that I really care, but I don't think the/. crowd is going to be overly critical of someone for reading a comics.
All of which have actually, and recently, stated things in their webspace when their corporate masters, would have probably prefered that they remain silent.
Consider that most (all) of these events would have been reported elsewhere sooner or later. If a story is going to come out, it is probably best for the company's own outlet to get the story first. No additional harm, and the outlet gets slightly more trustworthy to those of us who even consider who owns them. High-level corporate types are intelligent. They know that simple fear of consequences will keep their people's reporting in check for the most part, and the occasional negative story will keep public suspicion down. If they ever have something they really need covered up, they'll use whatever pressure they need to.
Now _this_ arguement I can accept. The arguement of an armed populace being safer is hard to swallow, but I do think that it's a good thing for the possibility of revolution to exist. (Especially in the States, which I feel is closer to a police state than most western nations.) The only real nit I can pick with this last post is that the 2nd was more about the populace defending itself in case of invasion than to bring down the American government. (not that that's neccessarily a bad idea) At the time, they didn't forsee a future where the U.S. wouldn't really be "the land of the free" anymore, and, unlike today, Britain sending in large numbers of troops into civilian centers was a plausible concept.
Slashdot Mirror
You twit. Canadian Bacon was made by a Canadian. Its called satire. S A T I R E. Moore was making fun of American views of Canadians.
Snowbirds, Canadians who go to the southern states [florida] for the winter.
BAH! Any Canadian who flees from the cold is no Canadian at all! Snickering at visiting American relatives for putting on big-ass parkas when its only -10 is part of what being Canadian is all about!
It must be being censored somewhere. I got the 4th, 5th, and 6th tapes for Christmas last year, and the damn things are bleeped!
Don't forget blatant. And boring. And long. And unoriginal. And boring.
What couldn't play on the radio? Must suck to be where you are and have censored songs on the radio.
So would most of the provinces. I'm still irritated by that, especially since we won't even get to see it unedited when we buy it on disc. And is 18+ really that bad a thing for a movie to get stuck with?
No, I still blame the censor. But I'm one of those people who also think that anyone making it easier for someone to do something is at least partially responsible (without reducing the blame on the party actually commiting the act).
This isn't just funny, its a real possibilty for any site that uses any shrinkwrapped software in the near future if the UCITA gets widely adopted. I don't suppose slashdot is using any commercial software, but many other sites are using something, somewhere in their system.
/. to me, and turn off my software?
And what if they decide to track down my negative comment on
1) Annoying self-righteous semi-public figure decides to spearhead labeling initiative to "protect the children!"
2) Evil mega-retailer sees oportunity to maintain public image of "the family-friendly" store, refuses to carry any music bearing such labels.
3) Record executive scum say "Ah, crap. Wal-Mart sells a very large percentage of our product. We better convince "the talent" that they have to change the lyrics."
4) Many artists, not in a position to argue with their record company submit. A few refuse, and take the sales hit.
If you hand a loaded gun to someone who is likely to use it to murder someone, you're at least partially responsible. Making it easy for major retailers to censor music is simply a more roundabout way of doing it yourself.
You can say "don't shop at Wal-Mart then", which is fine (I don't, and I won't), but the reality is, many people shop mainly at Wal-Mart, and they sell enough product that the record companies are inclined to listen. And much like corporate-controlled media, it leads to self-censorship, because the artists know that the sticker will affect sales.
Hmp. You forgot Canada. We could've done it. After all we don't like "them". Mainly 'cause they always forget to mention us.
Oh, and I want to meet a luddite capable of this. Ought to be a fairly interesting character. (Multiple Personality Disorder?)
Ender should ideally be read by kids Ender's age. They tend to relate to him better (especially highly intelligent kids)
Huh. I read 1984 at that age. Totally enthralled me. I spent a seriously large amount of time thinking about what I'd been reading, and it infact started me developing my philosophy and politics. (Of course, they've evolved quite a lot since then. I've moved past my doubt that maybe a controlled, happy populace is the best thing overall.)
I thought N 5.0 was supposed to be mozilla? Am I just clueless (high probability) or has something changed?
Ah well, 6 should be a ways off. Just make 5 able to run without crashing all the time. At this point, I'd use IE (or neoplanet) if I could get used to the different interface.
Why not just have a direct democracy? Well, obviously, because every person doesn't have the time to be remotely informed on every vote that takes place, nor is it feasable (yet) for such a system to be implementable. That's why candiates are supposed to have clear platforms. It allows the public to pick who they think will most accuratly represent their desires.
I see no problem with Senator Smith always voting however Religious Leader Jones tells him to, as long as he announced during his campaign that he would do that, so the voters knew what they were getting themselves into when they voted for Smith.
I wouldn't have a problem with this either. Of course, politicians don't announce much of anything as far as what their actual intentions are.
Your hypothetical fails to consider that Dr. King was not making his speeches as an agent of the church, but as a man who felt this was the right thing to do. Also, their is a difference between being convinced by the arguement of a religous leader, and doing what he says, merely because he says so.
I expect a Senator Smith to vote along the lines of what the public (especially those that voted him in) feel is appropriate. It is normal for one's religious beliefs to effect one's morality and philosophy, but the Senator should not be voting based on what the leader of his particular religion says. That's a major part of seperation of Church and State. It keeps the pope (or other religous leader) from controlling the state by making it clear how his followers are supposed to vote on issues.
tsk. You're going to try to use *logic* to explain why your not a ridiculous twit?
Can you understand the difference between claiming to not want to read something, and then doing so anyway, and reading something because you want to?
Then I hereby issue a request for someone, anyone, who is capable of addressing the content of a statement rather than worrying over who the author is, and if the can spell perfectly.
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
He probably doesn't know more about the group than any other member of the group (but he might. He probably has email discussions with more of us than you or I, or most anybody else in the group)
But I don't understand the "you're just an outsider, what could you know about us?" attitude that you (and others) have about Katz. He reads the same articles and comments you and I do. And he at least realizes that not every member is the exact same as he is. You seem to think that you know the group pretty well, or is that an imperial "we" your using there?
OK, I'm just going to comment on some of the posts I see here, and then on what Katz had to say.
.sig's to the effect of "spelling and grammer mistakes left in for those without the ability to think about the message" Professional writers have editors. Catching spelling and glaring grammatical errors is what they're for. If the message is clear, the grammer's good enough.
Before blathering (semi)mindlesly about the actual article, I'm going to use what appears to be a Slashdot requirement. I'm going to bitch and moan about other posters. I see at least four top level posts that consist of someone bitching that they're being forced to read Katz related stuff. OK, so maybe the cookie's didn't work perfectly, and the articles are showing up on the main page. Guess Andover or Katz himself sent someone over to force the poster to read and then reply to the article. How evil! If you don't want to read it, then don't. Quit posting about how it shouldn't exist. Desipite what you believe, you are no more the voice of Slashdot than Katz. Inconceivable as it may be to you, some people don't share your views, opinions, or backgrounds. Let us read the article in peace.
Katz may not consider his writing "stark" but I would say it is somewhat dry. It does tend to be long, and his writing style can make it seem longer than it is, but their _is_ content there (contrary to what some readers seem to think). Katz' mention of writing for Rolling Stone and New York magazine was news to me (I've not been here from the start - so feel free to ignore my opinions too). I don't know why this seemed to iritate so many posters. He's making a point, not just screaming "I've been published! Worship me now!" (Maybe these posters feel that writers should pretend they've never been published?)
A lot of the posters seem to dislike Katz' response to Q*bert's question. Yes, he got defensive at first, and I don't blame him. He does a good job explaining why he writes the way he does here, even if he does go over ground he's covered before. (But for newcomers, it helps to find out who he is) He's right about Slashdot readers not all being tech-gods too. (I myself am running Win98 because I couldn't get the damned RedHat install that I dl'd and burned to work off either CD drive.)
jd's question, and Katz reply didn't much interest me. I'm a socialist, and pretty firm in my desire for government to keep control of corporations. Libertarians strike me the same as Anarchists: people who really haven't thought about all the consequences.
swordgeek's question came off kind of condescending to me. I've known a few people who have a similar "form is more important than content" attitude, and basically gave up on trying to have intelligent conversations with them. I've seen a couple
A poster said that Katz called himself "rare". Since it was actually Signal 11 who said Katz was rare, I wonder if there really are people who so need to abuse Katz as to skim for something they can act indignant about as quickly as possible...
Signal 11's question about the hostility is interesting. Since he's one of the few posters who insists on being loudly abusive every time something by, or about Katz gets posted, he probably doesn't realize that there are only a few posters who seem to have an unhealthy amount of hate for Jon.
Katz' response to the first part of Skyshadow's response seems to have drawn some more flames. What the hell else would you call someone who rants and raves and flames and swears at someone for little or no good reason except immature? I don't agree with Katz' desire for a more moderated medium, but at least the answer is interesting.
I'd have to say I'm one of the anti-Christian slashdot readers Simeon2000 mentioned. I've read about and seen too many horrible things come from Christianity, and especially Catholicism. While many of the people I know (especially those past 30) believe in the Christian god, and the more benevolent teachings therof, almost all of the people I know who are activly involved in a formal religion are not people I care to spend time near, and most are people that I can activly dislike for being similar to missionaries of old, pushing their beliefs down the throats of others. I don't like people telling me how to live my life, won't accept my government doing so, and will actively resist someone telling my government to do so.
There. Now who's first to bitch about my spelling, grammer, and the length of my post?
"Uh, kinda... fat..."
"Really?"
Heh. Graphic novels, eh? I love it when people try to justify comics as graphic novels... The only comics that actually are "graphic novels" are the ones that are squarebound, and trade paperbacks don't count (that's several issues collected together, like what most people read when they read the Tick)
/. crowd is going to be overly critical of someone for reading a comics.
Not that I really care, but I don't think the
Beats the hell out of Greenland though...
All of which have actually, and recently, stated things in their webspace when their corporate masters, would have probably prefered that they remain silent.
Consider that most (all) of these events would have been reported elsewhere sooner or later. If a story is going to come out, it is probably best for the company's own outlet to get the story first. No additional harm, and the outlet gets slightly more trustworthy to those of us who even consider who owns them. High-level corporate types are intelligent. They know that simple fear of consequences will keep their people's reporting in check for the most part, and the occasional negative story will keep public suspicion down. If they ever have something they really need covered up, they'll use whatever pressure they need to.
two words: Human Cloning
Now _this_ arguement I can accept. The arguement of an armed populace being safer is hard to swallow, but I do think that it's a good thing for the possibility of revolution to exist. (Especially in the States, which I feel is closer to a police state than most western nations.) The only real nit I can pick with this last post is that the 2nd was more about the populace defending itself in case of invasion than to bring down the American government. (not that that's neccessarily a bad idea) At the time, they didn't forsee a future where the U.S. wouldn't really be "the land of the free" anymore, and, unlike today, Britain sending in large numbers of troops into civilian centers was a plausible concept.