My question is a different shade of the same issue, and more accusatory. I am am curious about how the canidates feel they represent characters in stories such as Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Animal Farm, and newer novels.
To me, Bush and Gore both seem to be nameless leaders from the world of Fahrenheit 451. The unpainted leaders who banished the unsettling realities to please their unwitting supplicants. I am truely frightened of this reality and the two canidates who are most prominant on television are prime canidates for the unwritten history of F451. Of the two, Gore seems the lesser evil.
Similarly, I wonder how aware the canidates are of how potent the feelings of intolerance to the injustices of {copyright law, corporatism, war on drugs, patent law/trend, post-columbine bullshit, ad nausium} are. I think much of the American reader base of slashdot have the sensation of a straightjacket either already on them (but not yet secured), or about to be forced onto them. Such a jacket would seem to be a required uniform to american citizens, like school uniforms, except for the mind and spirit.
/* Feel free to modify or borrow from this of course, the question is far more important than the credit */
----------
John Christopher Jones
Would Daedalus be able to get out of the Labyrinth he created after he went mad?
I don't believe that any law can or ever will be written that does not become draconian the moment it is passed. The reason is that language does not have set definitions and set meanings. Yes, we have dictionaries to give us meanings, but not only do those definitions change from dictionary to dictionary, but they change by their intended usage.
Laws are often written similiar to programming code, and thus are a pain in the ass to understand because of the natural ambiguities in languages. All languages are intended to describe a perspective acurately, and I have yet to see a human language that can be used omnispectively (as law is often ment).
To get to the point; laws are (or should be) guidelines. If it were to be strictly written what is and/or is not harassment, humans will adapt. What is considered harassment may be abandoned, what is not will be perverted into harassment. I can easily imagine the common practice in ten years for companies to pay people to go out on the street and prattle on to people about their products, when conversation is the only form of communication not dictated to be harassment. I do not want to see a law passed against uninitiated conversation.
A similar thing occurs now with marriages. People who get married for traditional reasons, do so to concecrate and create a love or a bonding that barely exists, and expect the marriage to make it real. The law does this no more than other laws do.
-- Daedalius, your friendly neighborhood labyrinth maker
Although it could spark a divisionary pretitle thingy, what if we were to take a word such as Da'Shain (from the Wheel of Time series) and prefix hacker to it, to to emphasize the intended usage of the word. Although you could just say "I am the White Hacker of the North" or something I guess. I find a particular intrest in this however. There are many different kinds of people who can be classified as hackers, in different fields and different styles, under different pretexts, etc. So, saying that you're say, a "Da'Shain Security Hacker" would be like saying "I'm one of those guys that beats the shit out of my own systems to try and make sure I can't beat the shit out of it". It's close to what alot of people I know of do, they say they "benevolently hack" or something that only the most media-worshiping mind could mistake as sarcastic irony.
I notice that alot of people don't seem to assosiate the cracker definition of hacker when people say they are art hackers, or automobile hackers, or that they hack around with . It's only when used in the digital sense that they find this queer idea. These same people also tend to get nervous when they see these people who present themselves and nice -and indeed kickass- people get near a computer of some sorts.
I believe I may take psycology courses in college. If I do I will probably try to attempt the biggest mindfuck hack the world has ever seen to fix a few million people's heads.
I have an idea. How about if our wonderful little Open Source community creates a free domain service. I personally do *NOT* want to see domain names in the hands of five companies each trying to squeeze as much capital out of people as possible. Domain names are NOT "real estate" like news.com so stupid stated, they're just a damned alias for an ip# and directory. I see no problem with the Open Source community setting up a domain database. Fsck, if it divided the internet into the Microsoft and Open Source internet because of it, I would be happy. I'm tired of dealing with ignods all day who have no clue what so ever what the hell this network is made of, and how it's structured. They just try to pull every particle of gold dust out of it and leave it to rot. Fscking M$hit, I should write an article. I'd like to see domain handling in the hands of a more open party who would be willing to impliment the proposed top level domains, or do something totaly different. I'm just babbling on, so let me state this: I hate the idea and all the problems that WILL come up if domain registration gets into the hands of these companies.
Ok, Here's my take. Whenever you distribute something digitally you have to compress it for it to be do-able. So you loose quality whenever you compress. I think all information should be free, however, there is value in hard copy. I would prefer to read a book printed on paper than to read a book on my screen.
With DVD now we have the potential for audio quality and playback features unmatchable with current CD technology. I think record companies should start letting artists give their work away in mp3 or vqf or whatever format they want. But if someone wants the hard copy, they'll have to buy it.
The same goes for all forms of intelectual property that this can pertain to. Books can easily be distributable over the internet, but many people would prefer hardcopy that won't vanish with a power surge, and doesn't give them any eye strain like CRTs or LCDs or Plasma displays.
At the very least, there's some sentimental value in hardcopy isn't there?
Slashdot Mirror
My question is a different shade of the same issue, and more accusatory. I am am curious about how the canidates feel they represent characters in stories such as Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Animal Farm, and newer novels.
To me, Bush and Gore both seem to be nameless leaders from the world of Fahrenheit 451. The unpainted leaders who banished the unsettling realities to please their unwitting supplicants. I am truely frightened of this reality and the two canidates who are most prominant on television are prime canidates for the unwritten history of F451. Of the two, Gore seems the lesser evil.
Similarly, I wonder how aware the canidates are of how potent the feelings of intolerance to the injustices of {copyright law, corporatism, war on drugs, patent law/trend, post-columbine bullshit, ad nausium} are. I think much of the American reader base of slashdot have the sensation of a straightjacket either already on them (but not yet secured), or about to be forced onto them. Such a jacket would seem to be a required uniform to american citizens, like school uniforms, except for the mind and spirit.
/* Feel free to modify or borrow from this of course, the question is far more important than the credit */
----------
John Christopher Jones
Would Daedalus be able to get out of the Labyrinth he created after he went mad?
Rob, Jon, one of the very leasons you speak of is how the pearls of wisdom are lost in the noise.
Take heed! :)
I don't believe that any law can or ever will be written that does not become draconian the moment it is passed. The reason is that language does not have set definitions and set meanings. Yes, we have dictionaries to give us meanings, but not only do those definitions change from dictionary to dictionary, but they change by their intended usage.
Laws are often written similiar to programming code, and thus are a pain in the ass to understand because of the natural ambiguities in languages. All languages are intended to describe a perspective acurately, and I have yet to see a human language that can be used omnispectively (as law is often ment).
To get to the point; laws are (or should be) guidelines. If it were to be strictly written what is and/or is not harassment, humans will adapt. What is considered harassment may be abandoned, what is not will be perverted into harassment. I can easily imagine the common practice in ten years for companies to pay people to go out on the street and prattle on to people about their products, when conversation is the only form of communication not dictated to be harassment. I do not want to see a law passed against uninitiated conversation.
A similar thing occurs now with marriages. People who get married for traditional reasons, do so to concecrate and create a love or a bonding that barely exists, and expect the marriage to make it real. The law does this no more than other laws do.
-- Daedalius, your friendly neighborhood labyrinth maker
Although it could spark a divisionary pretitle thingy, what if we were to take a word such as Da'Shain (from the Wheel of Time series) and prefix hacker to it, to to emphasize the intended usage of the word. Although you could just say "I am the White Hacker of the North" or something I guess. I find a particular intrest in this however. There are many different kinds of people who can be classified as hackers, in different fields and different styles, under different pretexts, etc. So, saying that you're say, a "Da'Shain Security Hacker" would be like saying "I'm one of those guys that beats the shit out of my own systems to try and make sure I can't beat the shit out of it". It's close to what alot of people I know of do, they say they "benevolently hack" or something that only the most media-worshiping mind could mistake as sarcastic irony.
I notice that alot of people don't seem to assosiate the cracker definition of hacker when people say they are art hackers, or automobile hackers, or that they hack around with . It's only when used in the digital sense that they find this queer idea. These same people also tend to get nervous when they see these people who present themselves and nice -and indeed kickass- people get near a computer of some sorts.
I believe I may take psycology courses in college. If I do I will probably try to attempt the biggest mindfuck hack the world has ever seen to fix a few million people's heads.
I have an idea. How about if our wonderful little Open Source community creates a free domain service. I personally do *NOT* want to see domain names in the hands of five companies each trying to squeeze as much capital out of people as possible. Domain names are NOT "real estate" like news.com so stupid stated, they're just a damned alias for an ip# and directory. I see no problem with the Open Source community setting up a domain database. Fsck, if it divided the internet into the Microsoft and Open Source internet because of it, I would be happy. I'm tired of dealing with ignods all day who have no clue what so ever what the hell this network is made of, and how it's structured. They just try to pull every particle of gold dust out of it and leave it to rot. Fscking M$hit, I should write an article. I'd like to see domain handling in the hands of a more open party who would be willing to impliment the proposed top level domains, or do something totaly different. I'm just babbling on, so let me state this: I hate the idea and all the problems that WILL come up if domain registration gets into the hands of these companies.
Ok, Here's my take. Whenever you distribute something digitally you have to compress it for it to be do-able. So you loose quality whenever you compress. I think all information should be free, however, there is value in hard copy. I would prefer to read a book printed on paper than to read a book on my screen.
With DVD now we have the potential for audio quality and playback features unmatchable with current CD technology. I think record companies should start letting artists give their work away in mp3 or vqf or whatever format they want. But if someone wants the hard copy, they'll have to buy it.
The same goes for all forms of intelectual property that this can pertain to. Books can easily be distributable over the internet, but many people would prefer hardcopy that won't vanish with a power surge, and doesn't give them any eye strain like CRTs or LCDs or Plasma displays.
At the very least, there's some sentimental value in hardcopy isn't there?
--------
DarkVein
--