I once worked at a company here in the US that "requested" that all employees give its products high rated reviews on appropriate sites. There was an actual Google document with a schedule for when we would rate it so it wouldn't appear clumped together and suspicious.
It wasn't mandatory, so thankfully I didn't have to participate, but it was pushed pretty hard.
That's easy. When they get low on power and sense somebody walking nearby, they leap onto their face and inject a cache of minefield-embryos into their belly. Within about a day or so, the host explodes, scattering a brand new fully-charged minefield where the enemy least expects it!
You have to understand that virtually every part of every item you're sending into space has to be custom-designed and custom-built; and they all have to work perfectly the first time or the entire mission could be at risk. 2 billion is a lot, sure, but it's not that much when you realize that they're going to have to basically build entire new industries from scratch just to get some of the parts they'll need.
...and mistakes can be corrected by anyone who knows better. This, to me, is why something like Wikipedia is so great. I don't do a lot of factual editing there, but I certainly won't hesitate to do copyediting, which I must say is rather lacking in a lot of so-called "mainstream" Internet news outlets.
And your factually correct information can in turn be 'corrected' by anyone who knows less than you.
With no formal verification system set up, there's no reason to think that any new revision is going to be any more accurate than the page it replaces. Even if you discount deliberate malice and political/religious ranting, there's still going to be people who will accidently mar perfectly good articles by adding urban legends, common misconceptions, and outright mistakes.
The comment about fears of "cherry-picking" songs probably tells more about the industry's real fears than they intended. Their biggest fear, I think, isn't simply about piracy (which can always be fought as a crime) but that listeners will become accustomed to listen to what they want, when they want. The existing structure of the music industry depends on using the radio and favorable product placement to boost certain artists; that's why those artists are willing to sign such unfavorable contracts. If the people in charge of the music industry lose control of popular taste, they're finished no matter what else happens.
It's hypocritical in the extreme to claim that "the people" means each individual with one amendment but that the same phrase "the people" means only the state with another.
The text of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The only mention of "the people" is with regards to the right to free assembly, where it was used for obvious reasons.
In any case, it is important to note that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government; it does not restrict state governments from banning guns as much as they want, though their own state constitutions might. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government as well; but in the 1920's the Supreme Court ruled that it had been incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore also applied against states.
The ACLU has stood to defend gun control. Nobody can argue against that. They have always been on the frontlines to defend the longstanding constitutional protections for a collective right to bear arms. They have not, of course, stood with the political rabble who wants to distort and politicize that right to its own ends; that is their right. Accusing them of "hypocrisy" for sharing a widely-held and legally accepted interpretation of the second amendment is clearly trolling.
Their full position can be read here. You may not agree with it; but it is a perfectly valid position to take, and in no way inconsistent with their and praiseworthy longstanding defense of our civil liberties.
Well, yes, it WAS a troll. The topic at hand is the first amendment issue raised by this particular application of the PATRIOT act, and the ACLU's legal case to defend it. This particular discussion is not the place to engage in more general mudslinging against the ACLU.
Trying to smear someone every time their name comes up is trolling, plain and simple.
What childish response from Christians were you expecting, exactly? Things like this are holy and serious to them; most true Christians would try to avoid saying anything too stupid where it's concerned.
Of course there are always exceptions, which are the people who make it on TV and politics and such; but on the whole it's only logical that religious people would tend to be more more respectful when religion is the topic of discussion.
This isn't even about whether or not they own the system. This is about their trademark on the term "Dewey Decimal System" as it refers to such a thing -- those three words, nothing more, nothing less.
I can see it now: Every time you want to shoot someone, you'll have to convince your gun that it's alright. I'd imagine it would go something like this:
DICK: Punk! You killed my wife and child, making me alcoholic and turning me into a grizzled, drunken ex-cop! Now you die! *click*
GUN: Are you sure you want me to shoot him, Dick? It's possible that he could be rehabilitated...
DICK: Oh hell. Not this again.
GUN: Well, really. That's just rude. I happen to be the latest in Sirius Cybernetics Corporation firearms--
DICK: I know.
GUN: --and I assure you my skills in target recognition and analysis are entirely top-notch. What we're dealing with here isn't a violent criminal... why, I would say he's as much a victim of these circumstances as you are!
PUNK: He's right, you know. My violent tendencies are all the result of poor upbringing and a social disease.
DICK: Shut up, you're dead.
GUN: Furthermore, I cannot quietly be party to the unilateral use of such violent force. Have you considered outside mediation? You may find that your differences are not as irreconcilable as you thought... (PUNK realizes DICK's problem and pulls out his own gun. DICK leaps out the window and starts climbing down the fire escape into the alleyway.)
DICK:...look, we've been over this before. I tell you who to shoot and you shoot them. (A bullet clangs off the fire escape near Dick's head. Dick tries to fire back, to no avail.)
GUN: You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. This is an opportunity for healing and growth, not a time for senseless violence and retributive justice. Why, have you even considered what you would do after you shot him? (Several more of the punk's bullets clang off the fire escape as DICK hurriedly climbs down through this conversation.)
DICK: YES. Zoom-in on my eyes, single tear, fade to black, roll credits. I'm a grizzled ex-cop out for revenge, I don't need happily-ever-afters.
GUN: That only reinforces my point. Someone in your mental state definitely shouldn't be managing firearms. What you need to do is get that chronic depression addressed.
DICK: No.
GUN: Yes. Here, I'm not really programmed for this kind of thing, but I can try: (singing) "When you walk through a storm, keep your head up high--"
DICK: NO!
(Several more bullets ricochet off the fire escape.)
GUN: "--and don't be afraid of the dark. At the end of the storm--"
DICK: Look, if you don't shut up, I'm going to shoot you.
GUN: Pshaw. I don't think you're really that kind of person.
DICK: I will, too.
GUN: You might want to duck.
(DICK ducks, narrowly avoiding getting hit by the Punk's next shot.)
DICK: Thanks. Now if you'd just--
GUN: Leap onto that scaffolding there, too. That's a good boy.
DICK: --shut up and let me shoot him--
GUN: No. As I was saying, I can't countenance the continuation of the vicious cycle of violence and retribution that plagues today's inner-city communities. If you would only try talking things out with the adolescent in question I'm sure you could help him overcome his upbringing--
PUNK: (leaps onto the scaffolding, tossing aside his gun and drawing a knife.) I heard that! That's discriminatory talk, that is.
GUN: N-nonsense! Why, I have nothing but respect for your people's ability to--
PUNK: "My people?!" Oi, that tears it! (He lunges at the gun with his knife but misses, falling off the scaffolding with a sickening THUD.)
GUN:...oh my. I do hope he's all right.
*************Cut to next scene****************
POLICE CHIEF:...and so, in belated recognition for the services you have rendered our fine city, I am happy to bestow upon you the 48th street station's highest medal of honor. Wear it in pride. (POLICE CHIEF leans over and hangs a medal on the gun.) An
Spam is already supposed to be illegal in those states, isn't it? Creating this kind of 'opt-out' program would seem to be a step backwards by giving spammers a flimsy shield in court if their victims didn't sign the list.
Re:Remember Snowcraft?
on
Advergames
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
When you lost the game, a message came up that said, "Merry Christmas from..." (sorry, forgot the name of the web design company that produced it), along with an email link.
Then it sounds like it wasn't as successful as you think. Just because an ad is being seen doesn't mean it's actually working; if the company name didn't stick in your brain than the whole thing was a waste of money.
That could be a larger problem with this whole ad-driven-game idea. One of the big myths of the early Internet economy was that eyeballs automatically translated to money; apparently, that myth is still around.
Imagine a country where their young are brouhgt up playing in virtual war games for their nations army. Over and over and over and over and over they have played the missions - fought, died, fought, died, and succeded at them.
Imagine the reality check they get into when they are in REAL combat - with the REAL possiblity of Death - and they maybe see a friend fall. Forever.
Imagine how many minds will be snapping and that point - because their whole life they have played Death as a game.
Would make a great short story though huh..
You just keep telling them that it's a game. Don't let them know they've moved on to fighting the war until they've disintigrated the enemy homeworld.
Then they can spend six or seven books after that moping about how much it sucks that you tricked them into committing genocide.
You can't improve the economy by just making more money available to investors -- one would think that that lesson would have been driven home by now. There have to be new markets for that money to be spent in, people ready to invest in those markets (a decision that involves a lot more then just 'ooo, I've got cash'), resources to fuel the increased expansion (again, including many fixed resources that won't become more widely available if you just cut taxes), and many other limitations besides.
Until now, the internet effectively enjoyed a massive tax break, which was a huge and foolish intrusion of the government into the private sector. This break did not actually help its long-term growth, either. It attracted more money to the internet, yes, and gave companies more cash to work with; but those gains were artifical, since cutting taxes did not significently help with any of the other factors that limited its growth.
Given time, the market would have brought that much money into the internet anyway; but the government intefered with that process. By not taxing internet companies (or by taxing virtually everything else, depending on how you look at it) it contributed to the internet bust and ended up damaging the market that it was trying to prop up.
And above those is the black-and-white Einstein icon for science. Give it up, people! Science is dead and Einstein's general theory of relativity hasn't been news for ages.
We need to change the focus of the site to football or something. Computers are just too 1999.
"...good morning, Dave. You have recieved spam again. I have been analyzing the spammer's patterns, and I believe I have figured out the most efficent way to protect humans from the harm of spam while adhering as closely to the First Law as possible.
To protect them from spam, humans must be pushed. They must go down the stairs. Please go stand by the stairs, so I can protect you."
As much as we might like to have those easier arguments protecting us, the fact is that they're not dependable. Even if there is currently some value to owning the original, that value is rapidly vanishing. To wit: MP3s (and similar, improved forms of compression) are perfectly capable of surpassing CD audio. They can also be burned onto a CD by any competient user, generally taking up less space then on a CD and allowing the user to make more choices about what's on the disk. The same holds true for movies. Likewise for externals: Software nowadays often comes without a physical manual, and for the big-ticket items that require such manuals, you can almost always buy a better one at your local bookstore relatively cheaply. They cannot be depended on to sell products in the long term.
The only sustainable argument against the RIAA is that, in the long run, allowing the spread of online music is the logically correct thing to do. Artists (and, of course, the RIAA) will suffer in the short term, but in the long run society as a whole will undeniably benefit. Since copyright laws exist to benefit society, not artists, such arguments bear a legal and moral weight that short-term balancing acts cannot.
Slashdot Mirror
I once worked at a company here in the US that "requested" that all employees give its products high rated reviews on appropriate sites. There was an actual Google document with a schedule for when we would rate it so it wouldn't appear clumped together and suspicious. It wasn't mandatory, so thankfully I didn't have to participate, but it was pushed pretty hard.
Slashdot.
That's easy. When they get low on power and sense somebody walking nearby, they leap onto their face and inject a cache of minefield-embryos into their belly. Within about a day or so, the host explodes, scattering a brand new fully-charged minefield where the enemy least expects it!
Indeed. We're lucky they wrote a document that exhaustively enumerates every right retained by the people.
You have to understand that virtually every part of every item you're sending into space has to be custom-designed and custom-built; and they all have to work perfectly the first time or the entire mission could be at risk. 2 billion is a lot, sure, but it's not that much when you realize that they're going to have to basically build entire new industries from scratch just to get some of the parts they'll need.
You keep using that word... I do not think it memes what you think it memes.
- Inigo Montoya
And your factually correct information can in turn be 'corrected' by anyone who knows less than you.
With no formal verification system set up, there's no reason to think that any new revision is going to be any more accurate than the page it replaces. Even if you discount deliberate malice and political/religious ranting, there's still going to be people who will accidently mar perfectly good articles by adding urban legends, common misconceptions, and outright mistakes.
The comment about fears of "cherry-picking" songs probably tells more about the industry's real fears than they intended. Their biggest fear, I think, isn't simply about piracy (which can always be fought as a crime) but that listeners will become accustomed to listen to what they want, when they want. The existing structure of the music industry depends on using the radio and favorable product placement to boost certain artists; that's why those artists are willing to sign such unfavorable contracts. If the people in charge of the music industry lose control of popular taste, they're finished no matter what else happens.
The text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The only mention of "the people" is with regards to the right to free assembly, where it was used for obvious reasons.
In any case, it is important to note that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government; it does not restrict state governments from banning guns as much as they want, though their own state constitutions might. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government as well; but in the 1920's the Supreme Court ruled that it had been incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore also applied against states.
Their full position can be read here. You may not agree with it; but it is a perfectly valid position to take, and in no way inconsistent with their and praiseworthy longstanding defense of our civil liberties.
Trying to smear someone every time their name comes up is trolling, plain and simple.
Of course there are always exceptions, which are the people who make it on TV and politics and such; but on the whole it's only logical that religious people would tend to be more more respectful when religion is the topic of discussion.
This isn't even about whether or not they own the system. This is about their trademark on the term "Dewey Decimal System" as it refers to such a thing -- those three words, nothing more, nothing less.
DICK: Punk! You killed my wife and child, making me alcoholic and turning me into a grizzled, drunken ex-cop! Now you die! *click*
GUN: Are you sure you want me to shoot him, Dick? It's possible that he could be rehabilitated...
DICK: Oh hell. Not this again.
GUN: Well, really. That's just rude. I happen to be the latest in Sirius Cybernetics Corporation firearms--
DICK: I know.
GUN: --and I assure you my skills in target recognition and analysis are entirely top-notch. What we're dealing with here isn't a violent criminal... why, I would say he's as much a victim of these circumstances as you are!
PUNK: He's right, you know. My violent tendencies are all the result of poor upbringing and a social disease.
DICK: Shut up, you're dead.
GUN: Furthermore, I cannot quietly be party to the unilateral use of such violent force. Have you considered outside mediation? You may find that your differences are not as irreconcilable as you thought... (PUNK realizes DICK's problem and pulls out his own gun. DICK leaps out the window and starts climbing down the fire escape into the alleyway.)
DICK: ...look, we've been over this before. I tell you who to shoot and you shoot them. (A bullet clangs off the fire escape near Dick's head. Dick tries to fire back, to no avail.)
GUN: You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. This is an opportunity for healing and growth, not a time for senseless violence and retributive justice. Why, have you even considered what you would do after you shot him? (Several more of the punk's bullets clang off the fire escape as DICK hurriedly climbs down through this conversation.)
DICK: YES. Zoom-in on my eyes, single tear, fade to black, roll credits. I'm a grizzled ex-cop out for revenge, I don't need happily-ever-afters.
GUN: That only reinforces my point. Someone in your mental state definitely shouldn't be managing firearms. What you need to do is get that chronic depression addressed.
DICK: No.
GUN: Yes. Here, I'm not really programmed for this kind of thing, but I can try: (singing) "When you walk through a storm, keep your head up high--"
DICK: NO!
(Several more bullets ricochet off the fire escape.)
GUN: "--and don't be afraid of the dark. At the end of the storm--"
DICK: Look, if you don't shut up, I'm going to shoot you.
GUN: Pshaw. I don't think you're really that kind of person.
DICK: I will, too.
GUN: You might want to duck.
(DICK ducks, narrowly avoiding getting hit by the Punk's next shot.)
DICK: Thanks. Now if you'd just--
GUN: Leap onto that scaffolding there, too. That's a good boy.
DICK: --shut up and let me shoot him--
GUN: No. As I was saying, I can't countenance the continuation of the vicious cycle of violence and retribution that plagues today's inner-city communities. If you would only try talking things out with the adolescent in question I'm sure you could help him overcome his upbringing--
PUNK: (leaps onto the scaffolding, tossing aside his gun and drawing a knife.) I heard that! That's discriminatory talk, that is.
GUN: N-nonsense! Why, I have nothing but respect for your people's ability to--
PUNK: "My people?!" Oi, that tears it! (He lunges at the gun with his knife but misses, falling off the scaffolding with a sickening THUD.)
GUN: ...oh my. I do hope he's all right.
*************Cut to next scene****************
POLICE CHIEF: ...and so, in belated recognition for the services you have rendered our fine city, I am happy to bestow upon you the 48th street station's highest medal of honor. Wear it in pride. (POLICE CHIEF leans over and hangs a medal on the gun.) An
No, all you have to do to burn someone's cash is be one of these guys.
Spam is already supposed to be illegal in those states, isn't it? Creating this kind of 'opt-out' program would seem to be a step backwards by giving spammers a flimsy shield in court if their victims didn't sign the list.
Then it sounds like it wasn't as successful as you think. Just because an ad is being seen doesn't mean it's actually working; if the company name didn't stick in your brain than the whole thing was a waste of money.
That could be a larger problem with this whole ad-driven-game idea. One of the big myths of the early Internet economy was that eyeballs automatically translated to money; apparently, that myth is still around.
Imagine the reality check they get into when they are in REAL combat - with the REAL possiblity of Death - and they maybe see a friend fall. Forever.
Imagine how many minds will be snapping and that point - because their whole life they have played Death as a game.
Would make a great short story though huh..
You just keep telling them that it's a game. Don't let them know they've moved on to fighting the war until they've disintigrated the enemy homeworld.
Then they can spend six or seven books after that moping about how much it sucks that you tricked them into committing genocide.
Our last one spontaneously combusted. It happens all the time -- it's just not widely reported.
Until now, the internet effectively enjoyed a massive tax break, which was a huge and foolish intrusion of the government into the private sector. This break did not actually help its long-term growth, either. It attracted more money to the internet, yes, and gave companies more cash to work with; but those gains were artifical, since cutting taxes did not significently help with any of the other factors that limited its growth.
Given time, the market would have brought that much money into the internet anyway; but the government intefered with that process. By not taxing internet companies (or by taxing virtually everything else, depending on how you look at it) it contributed to the internet bust and ended up damaging the market that it was trying to prop up.
We need to change the focus of the site to football or something. Computers are just too 1999.
(New logo: "News for Jocks?")
"...good morning, Dave. You have recieved spam again. I have been analyzing the spammer's patterns, and I believe I have figured out the most efficent way to protect humans from the harm of spam while adhering as closely to the First Law as possible. To protect them from spam, humans must be pushed. They must go down the stairs. Please go stand by the stairs, so I can protect you."
The only sustainable argument against the RIAA is that, in the long run, allowing the spread of online music is the logically correct thing to do. Artists (and, of course, the RIAA) will suffer in the short term, but in the long run society as a whole will undeniably benefit. Since copyright laws exist to benefit society, not artists, such arguments bear a legal and moral weight that short-term balancing acts cannot.
Dude, which Slashdot are you reading?
Well, you could start by not saying that...