Let's spend less time fighting with each other and more time figuring out how we can get our species off of this lovely little rock and onto the next one because that's our only hope for survival in the end.
This statement is so troubling, and more so given its current rank of "Insightful." The logical extension of the argument seems to be that since things are by their nature finite and subject to ruination, they have no worth. Replace the terms of the argument with a human being and see how this approach pans out...
Ultimately, from the moment of birth our lives are limited by forces outside of our control. Whether it's death by murder, viruses, car crashes or even natural causes, at some point, our lives will cease. So let's stop trying to avoid things that kill us and spend more time figuring out how to live outside our bodies. In summation, smoke up Johnny.
Doesn't really work does it? It is simply farcical to make any claim that there is no worth or point in seeking to mitigate the impact of our actions on the planet or ourselves. Whether climate change is part of a larger natural process or actually being adversely affected by human activity is moot. We know there is a causal connection between human activity and the health of this world (or any other world), it is in our best interest to attempt and address it.
"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I recommend you look around the world in which we live...and shut your fucking mouth."
and...
"I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?.......Non-smokers die every day...Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the first to POP that bubble and bring you hurtling back to reality....You're dead too."
So I start thinking about how one would go about drinking 100 cups of coffee with maximum efficiency. And the image of a giant funnel appears in my head...
With a tube connected to it...
"Where have I seen that before?" I ask myself.
"Self," I say, "that's a beer bong!" And then the image hits me, the world's largest funnel filled with 100 scalding hot (like McDonald's lawsuit hot) cups of coffee just steaming away. I'm no expert. But I think that would kill you.
I agree with a fair amount of what you're saying but there's one field of invention that I don't see you address... software. Since software isn't technically a 'real world' item and since it's based on similar methodologies as the patent in the article, how do you both protect the rights of those who develop software and yet not lapse into this silly business-logic model patenting. Just a thought.
Actually, I think I'll now take the opportunity to call you on your increasingly unstable position. First, it might be a good idea to cite references before using them, especially when citing the Supreme Court. Second, allow me to remind you of your original comment:
"The Constitution states that enemy combatants are not entitled to those rights, even as American Citizens. It also states that the Attorney General of the United States has the authority to designate enemy combatats for reasons of national security."
Read the Court's judgment carefully and you'll realize it has no basis in actual Constitutional provisions but rather in the Articles of War. The only Constitutional reference is an extrapolation of the duties given to Congress and the President.
Further, from your own reference enemy combatants are "those who during time of war pass surreptiously from enemy territory into our own." So all those 'enemy combatants' cooling their heels in Gitmo right now were in the new American territory of Afghanistan? Don't think so.
Regardless, this wasn't your statement. Your statement was that the Constitution grants the designation of enemy combatant (which it doesn't) and that this is determined by the attorney general (which it's not.)
Maybe you just tend to make sloppy arguments. I'm more inclined to think you are just a fool.
I am done with this thread. Respond as you will, comfortable in the knowledge that you'll have the last word.
Would you care to point out just where exactly in the Constitution or the Amendments this is established? I don't find any mention of enemy combatants or the Attorney General.
From what I've seen so far, the comments seem to be running to the "those crazy leftist fanatics are at it again with their conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations." This out of hat dismissal concerns me. More importantly it surprises me, given that the Slashdot crowd seems to at least be more "informed" than your average American citizen. Allow me to respond to many of the comments at once, rather than distributing my wisdom (or lack thereof) in scattered posts.
First, as to the accusation that the site is somehow un-American (a coinage that seems to have discovered a new lease on life since 9/11) since many of the stories somehow involve US involvement in affairs that do not put us in a very glowing light I'd respond that given the United States' pre-eminence economically, politically and culturally you would be hard pressed to find a situation that through our active or passive involvement, we are not implicated in. For proof of how our passiveness affects other countries, read your history of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Hussein communicated to the US ambassador an interest in seizing Kuwait. When the US offered no opposition or even statement of opposition, Hussein invaded. One wonders if Gulf War I could have been avoided had a clear message been sent to Iraq prior to the invasion of Kuwait. On the other side of that responsibility is our active involvement in international affairs. On that note, take a brief consideration of our historical actions in Iran and ask if the hostility towards the US there isn't at least in a nationalistic sense, well grounded.
As to the sentiment of un-American, this one statement can be reduced to nothing more than vitriol. I have personally been accused of being un-American and unpatriotic for at various times voicing my opposition to the policies of the current administration. Some reasonable people, who failed to call me unpatriotic before we attacked Iraq, called me that afterwards since I wasn't "supporting the troops." The very indictment is flawed and irrational. In the very essence of voicing my opposition to the opinion of the sitting President, I am acting responsibly AND patriotically. Responsibly, in that one should not grant assent to a leader just because he's in power and patriotically, in that I am upholding the very rights, which this country so magnanimously grants us. As any developer knows-critical thought is eminently fundamental to the development of any system. Political dialogue is critical thought on a peer to peer basis.
Finally, was the site's use of 'censored' the best choice? No, probably not. Under reported and under-represented by the major media outlets? Absolutely. Even liberal leaning old me had failed to hear about several of the items on their list. What should be kept in perspective is the fact that the site seeks to highlight the information that people may not have heard too much about from their traditional sources. Does Project Censored have a clear agenda? It would definitely appear so, but then ask yourself if Fox News doesn't as well. Or ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ad inifinitum. When news became business, such a thing as objective journalism went away. Why else does just about everyone in the country know the name of Laci Peterson? Can you think of one prevailing reason why her victimization trumps the victimization of millions of other people around the world? As the Fox affiliate in Miami phrased it, "If it bleeds, it leads."
And at this point I am probably off-topic. I just felt that some contrary opinion was needed to balance the bulk of what I'd read. Immediate dismissals are just as culpable as the blind acceptance of what one's been told. If you disagree with a 'fact,' establish the reasons why without resorting to off the cuff retorts or invective filled denials. Rationally approach the problem and if you find it important enough to speak about, speak with at least a modicum of informed opinion. Or don't, and fill the ether with the tiny murmurs of blind assent and self-righteous denial.
The point I'm making is that given the internet's novelty in 1992, Clinton's actions to establish a web site that was useful as well as informative to the public, should be commended. I would consider the internet a much different technical accomplishment than the automobile given that its primary purpose is the 'disemmination of information' rather than the transport of object A to point B. I don't know about you, but I find it much more efficient to have friends email me greetings rather than driving (or flying) in from all over the globe just to say hi.
If you need a blatant contrast to better grok the point, consider the roadblocks (pun intended) the present administration is implementing vis a vis this very topic. Here is an instance where the technology is available and in even greater use than 10 years ago, yet the administration insists upon making the utilization of that technology more difficult, even going so far as to limit the innovations that have already been instituted by past administrations.
And if this is the most pointless statement you've ever read (regardless of my clarification), I envy you.
I noticed this policy the other day while looking for a method of having the daily press briefings emailed to me. I believe this is really just a form of crowd control. The easier it is to contact your elected official, the more often you'll do so. Make the barrier to entry higher, i.e. a phone call which costs you money, and you raise the barrier to entry. I can imagine how many emails they get a day especially since they're probably on every spam email list in the world.
On a side note, for what it's worth, the daily press briefings contain more 'hard' news than I see in the average evening news broadcast. (On a politically snider note, it's also much easier to understand how bad off things are when you can actually read the daily obfuscations with your own eyes, and in most cases, watch them in streaming video sans interepretation by talking heads.)
Also, say what you will about Clinton, but he was the first president to really make an effort at utilizing the internet to diseminate information regarding the executive branch, though granted he was the first president of the 'internet era.' There are several cool innovations he made and several excellent articles over at Slate regarding the White House web (Article #1 and Article #2) historically.
In other news, XianDeath was modded down to a troll for congratulating the original poster for an incredibly humorous link in his sig. Following his announcement of this odd moderation behavior, his subsequent message was moderated to offtopic... since it was.
It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity.
I only wish you were kidding. Let us always remember that we need to protect everyone from everyone else by constantly monitoring our speech and language. By your logic, if a circus clown had killed my father and you started talking about what a great time you and your kids had at Ringling Bros the other night, you're just being stupid and insensitive. Give it a rest. The film-makers owe no obligation to anyone but themselves to use the language and nomenclature that they find creatively appropriate. 'Stupid and insensitive' is not only narrow-minded and uninformed, it is worse, an ad hominem attack that has no reasonable basis. (And if you have any doubts regarding the validity of my criticism, consider how uninformed I must be about whether you truly are narrow-minded and uninformed).
I personally would love to see any movie involving evil Southern baptists. It is a sad state of affairs that there aren't more of them as I know many Southern Baptists quite well and I hate to say it but... they are in fact evil. I don't find and value in your analogy, at least, I didn't find anything particularly offensive with the concept.
Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East.
I'm not quite sure how you make this value judgment. What is your conception of 'society' and do you honestly think that one country alones trumps the entire collective character of all the others. Your comment needs a fair amount of elaboration if you want to be taken seriously.
"But Griesmar, the bank's recruiter and an assistant file every resume they receive.
'We feel we have to keep everything that comes to us even if they want to be a message therapist,' she said. 'I'd rather spend my time doing productive things than fighting a regulator... having to explain what happened to a year's worth of resumes.'"
Personally, I'd rather be spending my time as a 'message therapist.'
Of course there's such a thing as 'dangerous' technology; nuclear fission, explosives/pyrotechnics, species engineering, etc. Technology such as this can melt down and evacuate a fairly significant chunk of country (Chernobyl), can blow your hand off (fireworks) or create unforseen biological epidemics (any well-meaning attempt to bring one animal in to solve an insect problem only to have an animal problem).
The gun is just as dangerous to grandma as it is to the 4 year old kid, or the criminal for that matter. The difference is in your phrase 'used properly'. 'Use' or implementation is far different from the technology itself as any programmer on Slashdot can most likely attest. The difference between the gun and some program I wrote is that while a user may 'mishandle' my program, their head probably will not explode where as with a gun... well, just take a look at Hemmingway.
Divorcing the actions of the user before evaluating technology should tell you whether it is inherently dangerous and I can't imagine anything more so than an Acme Do-It-Yourself A-Bomb Kit regardless of whether I have a PhD in advanced physics or work as a greeter at Wal-Mart
I would have liked to have seen more coverage of AMD technological initiatives as well as some coverage of the forthcoming 64-bit processors and their impact on our legacy framework. My rudimentary understanding leads me to believe that this will necessitate a major architectural switch that ultimately will affect current design considerations.
Which was only to say that when I initially attempted to acccess the primary link, the above text was exactly what I got. Unfortunate that in my haste to spread the frustration of what appeared to be a dead site, I've been mod'ed down to offtopic... oh well.
Must... explicate... more...
My favorite part of the article was the part about "ÁÏ.ãqÌ|fs~á×|bovVÁ3pè5B úèÍ2E¼}Â÷Pg|\ÎÝ®ÝXD(TM)ÓËûÀêâæÐóØq3 ì8Îx-×> M'r "
I have no idea how to even begin to respond.
I understand the gentleman's complaint and I too would be a bit put out if I received a letter like this after performing what everyone would agree is a public service. However, I have to say that after reading the letter from the lawyers, I feel his emotions have clouded a rather benign request.
It looks to me like the lawyers were explicitly asking for a removal of the logo, as an official logo adds an air of 'authenticity' to just about anything. Ask yourself if he had put the RedHat or Microsoft logo over his information whether after linking to his site, an individual would have realized immediately that it was merely a reference to information regarding MS or RedHat. I think the request was completely valid.
Regarding the use of the actual letters, I didn't really see that strong of an emphasis as stated in the legal missive itself. I don't see how that request is even remotely defensible as PCI is a common use identification of a widely used technology and I don't think that's what they were looking for. If you look at the trademarked logo, you'll realize that all it is, is their stylized letters. I think if he had not been so offended by the fact that he received a letter from OH MY GOD lawyers, he probably could have worked it out.
Leaps to judgment never lead to anything but bad mistakes... just take a look at Bush.
This could lead to a whole new sport involving low flying jets. Image how the data would look after factoring in a couple "cars" traveling upwards of 250 - 400mph.
Near as I can tell, this is a blatant violation of Yahoo's Terms of Service(http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) , wherein:
"You acknowledge that Yahoo does not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or move any Content that is available via the Service. "
Slashdot Mirror
The first citation is from a different article than the link: http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=3237
This statement is so troubling, and more so given its current rank of "Insightful." The logical extension of the argument seems to be that since things are by their nature finite and subject to ruination, they have no worth. Replace the terms of the argument with a human being and see how this approach pans out...
Ultimately, from the moment of birth our lives are limited by forces outside of our control. Whether it's death by murder, viruses, car crashes or even natural causes, at some point, our lives will cease. So let's stop trying to avoid things that kill us and spend more time figuring out how to live outside our bodies. In summation, smoke up Johnny.
Doesn't really work does it? It is simply farcical to make any claim that there is no worth or point in seeking to mitigate the impact of our actions on the planet or ourselves. Whether climate change is part of a larger natural process or actually being adversely affected by human activity is moot. We know there is a causal connection between human activity and the health of this world (or any other world), it is in our best interest to attempt and address it.
"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I recommend you look around the world in which we live...and shut your fucking mouth."
and...
"I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?.......Non-smokers die every day...Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the first to POP that bubble and bring you hurtling back to reality....You're dead too."
With a tube connected to it...
"Where have I seen that before?" I ask myself.
"Self," I say, "that's a beer bong!" And then the image hits me, the world's largest funnel filled with 100 scalding hot (like McDonald's lawsuit hot) cups of coffee just steaming away. I'm no expert. But I think that would kill you.
I agree with a fair amount of what you're saying but there's one field of invention that I don't see you address... software. Since software isn't technically a 'real world' item and since it's based on similar methodologies as the patent in the article, how do you both protect the rights of those who develop software and yet not lapse into this silly business-logic model patenting. Just a thought.
"The Constitution states that enemy combatants are not entitled to those rights, even as American Citizens. It also states that the Attorney General of the United States has the authority to designate enemy combatats for reasons of national security."
Read the Court's judgment carefully and you'll realize it has no basis in actual Constitutional provisions but rather in the Articles of War. The only Constitutional reference is an extrapolation of the duties given to Congress and the President. Further, from your own reference enemy combatants are "those who during time of war pass surreptiously from enemy territory into our own." So all those 'enemy combatants' cooling their heels in Gitmo right now were in the new American territory of Afghanistan? Don't think so.
Regardless, this wasn't your statement. Your statement was that the Constitution grants the designation of enemy combatant (which it doesn't) and that this is determined by the attorney general (which it's not.)
Maybe you just tend to make sloppy arguments. I'm more inclined to think you are just a fool. I am done with this thread. Respond as you will, comfortable in the knowledge that you'll have the last word.
How's that for next.
I guess I should just point out that your argument is shit then?
First, as to the accusation that the site is somehow un-American (a coinage that seems to have discovered a new lease on life since 9/11) since many of the stories somehow involve US involvement in affairs that do not put us in a very glowing light I'd respond that given the United States' pre-eminence economically, politically and culturally you would be hard pressed to find a situation that through our active or passive involvement, we are not implicated in. For proof of how our passiveness affects other countries, read your history of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Hussein communicated to the US ambassador an interest in seizing Kuwait. When the US offered no opposition or even statement of opposition, Hussein invaded. One wonders if Gulf War I could have been avoided had a clear message been sent to Iraq prior to the invasion of Kuwait. On the other side of that responsibility is our active involvement in international affairs. On that note, take a brief consideration of our historical actions in Iran and ask if the hostility towards the US there isn't at least in a nationalistic sense, well grounded.
As to the sentiment of un-American, this one statement can be reduced to nothing more than vitriol. I have personally been accused of being un-American and unpatriotic for at various times voicing my opposition to the policies of the current administration. Some reasonable people, who failed to call me unpatriotic before we attacked Iraq, called me that afterwards since I wasn't "supporting the troops." The very indictment is flawed and irrational. In the very essence of voicing my opposition to the opinion of the sitting President, I am acting responsibly AND patriotically. Responsibly, in that one should not grant assent to a leader just because he's in power and patriotically, in that I am upholding the very rights, which this country so magnanimously grants us. As any developer knows-critical thought is eminently fundamental to the development of any system. Political dialogue is critical thought on a peer to peer basis.
Finally, was the site's use of 'censored' the best choice? No, probably not. Under reported and under-represented by the major media outlets? Absolutely. Even liberal leaning old me had failed to hear about several of the items on their list. What should be kept in perspective is the fact that the site seeks to highlight the information that people may not have heard too much about from their traditional sources. Does Project Censored have a clear agenda? It would definitely appear so, but then ask yourself if Fox News doesn't as well. Or ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ad inifinitum. When news became business, such a thing as objective journalism went away. Why else does just about everyone in the country know the name of Laci Peterson? Can you think of one prevailing reason why her victimization trumps the victimization of millions of other people around the world? As the Fox affiliate in Miami phrased it, "If it bleeds, it leads."
And at this point I am probably off-topic. I just felt that some contrary opinion was needed to balance the bulk of what I'd read. Immediate dismissals are just as culpable as the blind acceptance of what one's been told. If you disagree with a 'fact,' establish the reasons why without resorting to off the cuff retorts or invective filled denials. Rationally approach the problem and if you find it important enough to speak about, speak with at least a modicum of informed opinion. Or don't, and fill the ether with the tiny murmurs of blind assent and self-righteous denial.
If you need a blatant contrast to better grok the point, consider the roadblocks (pun intended) the present administration is implementing vis a vis this very topic. Here is an instance where the technology is available and in even greater use than 10 years ago, yet the administration insists upon making the utilization of that technology more difficult, even going so far as to limit the innovations that have already been instituted by past administrations.
And if this is the most pointless statement you've ever read (regardless of my clarification), I envy you.
On a side note, for what it's worth, the daily press briefings contain more 'hard' news than I see in the average evening news broadcast. (On a politically snider note, it's also much easier to understand how bad off things are when you can actually read the daily obfuscations with your own eyes, and in most cases, watch them in streaming video sans interepretation by talking heads.)
Also, say what you will about Clinton, but he was the first president to really make an effort at utilizing the internet to diseminate information regarding the executive branch, though granted he was the first president of the 'internet era.' There are several cool innovations he made and several excellent articles over at Slate regarding the White House web (Article #1 and Article #2) historically.
In other news, XianDeath was modded down to a troll for congratulating the original poster for an incredibly humorous link in his sig. Following his announcement of this odd moderation behavior, his subsequent message was moderated to offtopic... since it was.
If I still had my moderator points from yesterday, I'd have given you all of them just for the link in the sig... well referenced.
I only wish you were kidding. Let us always remember that we need to protect everyone from everyone else by constantly monitoring our speech and language. By your logic, if a circus clown had killed my father and you started talking about what a great time you and your kids had at Ringling Bros the other night, you're just being stupid and insensitive. Give it a rest. The film-makers owe no obligation to anyone but themselves to use the language and nomenclature that they find creatively appropriate. 'Stupid and insensitive' is not only narrow-minded and uninformed, it is worse, an ad hominem attack that has no reasonable basis. (And if you have any doubts regarding the validity of my criticism, consider how uninformed I must be about whether you truly are narrow-minded and uninformed).
I personally would love to see any movie involving evil Southern baptists. It is a sad state of affairs that there aren't more of them as I know many Southern Baptists quite well and I hate to say it but... they are in fact evil. I don't find and value in your analogy, at least, I didn't find anything particularly offensive with the concept.
Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East.
I'm not quite sure how you make this value judgment. What is your conception of 'society' and do you honestly think that one country alones trumps the entire collective character of all the others. Your comment needs a fair amount of elaboration if you want to be taken seriously.
'We feel we have to keep everything that comes to us even if they want to be a message therapist,' she said. 'I'd rather spend my time doing productive things than fighting a regulator ... having to explain what happened to a year's worth of resumes.'"
Personally, I'd rather be spending my time as a 'message therapist.'
The gun is just as dangerous to grandma as it is to the 4 year old kid, or the criminal for that matter. The difference is in your phrase 'used properly'. 'Use' or implementation is far different from the technology itself as any programmer on Slashdot can most likely attest. The difference between the gun and some program I wrote is that while a user may 'mishandle' my program, their head probably will not explode where as with a gun... well, just take a look at Hemmingway.
Divorcing the actions of the user before evaluating technology should tell you whether it is inherently dangerous and I can't imagine anything more so than an Acme Do-It-Yourself A-Bomb Kit regardless of whether I have a PhD in advanced physics or work as a greeter at Wal-Mart
I don't know what kind of developers he's hiring but for $500,000 a pop -- I'm sending him my damn resume.
But I could be wrong.
Which was only to say that when I initially attempted to acccess the primary link, the above text was exactly what I got. Unfortunate that in my haste to spread the frustration of what appeared to be a dead site, I've been mod'ed down to offtopic... oh well. Must... explicate... more...
My favorite part of the article was the part about "ÁÏ.ãqÌ|fs~á×|bovVÁ3pè5B úèÍ2E¼}Â÷Pg|\ÎÝ®ÝXD(TM)ÓËûÀêâæÐóØq3 ì8Îx-×> M'r " I have no idea how to even begin to respond.
It looks to me like the lawyers were explicitly asking for a removal of the logo, as an official logo adds an air of 'authenticity' to just about anything. Ask yourself if he had put the RedHat or Microsoft logo over his information whether after linking to his site, an individual would have realized immediately that it was merely a reference to information regarding MS or RedHat. I think the request was completely valid.
Regarding the use of the actual letters, I didn't really see that strong of an emphasis as stated in the legal missive itself. I don't see how that request is even remotely defensible as PCI is a common use identification of a widely used technology and I don't think that's what they were looking for. If you look at the trademarked logo, you'll realize that all it is, is their stylized letters. I think if he had not been so offended by the fact that he received a letter from OH MY GOD lawyers, he probably could have worked it out.
Leaps to judgment never lead to anything but bad mistakes... just take a look at Bush.
Christian K
This could lead to a whole new sport involving low flying jets. Image how the data would look after factoring in a couple "cars" traveling upwards of 250 - 400mph.
Near as I can tell, this is a blatant violation of Yahoo's Terms of Service(http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) , wherein:
"You acknowledge that Yahoo does not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or move any Content that is available via the Service. "
Anyone up for a civil suit?