Yes, it's telling, isn't it, that the current president and administration make Nixon look a "left-wing loony" by contrast?
Eh, when even most Republicans think Bush is a douchebag (even if they won't admit it out of some sort of party-loyalty; I knew Democrats who felt similar about Clinton), it doesn't matter if he makes Nixon look left wing or not. It's when he starts making Nixon look likable that we know the man has fucked up.
Of course, I think most politicians are douchebags, so maybe I'm the wrong guy to comment here...
The dmca was a land grab that would never have happened if not for 9/11, and couldn't happen in most other countries where the views of the people count.
Uh.
The DMCA was passed in 1998.
Are you implying Bush has a time machine and went back in time to talk Clinton into signing it?
So what? With my monitor turned off, my desktop uses a lot less energy. I'm not running a giant 500w power supply though. It's no worse than leaving a few lights on. Also, these are Linux boxes were're talking about -- they're hardly sitting around idle. (Mine is generally running MythTV, downloading one thing or another, etc.)
I like having it do things that I don't want to sit there and wait on.
I don't think security is such a big issue it deserves two points on your list. Again, this is Linux and most people using it are going to make sure there's some extra security; we're not the average user.
It's a poor solution to the problem of long boot times.
That point, I'll concede totally. Leaving your box online just so you don't have to boot it up is a really lame way to deal with it. That said, my Ubuntu install takes roughly the same amount of time as XP, both with no tweaking to the boot process of either.
It uses up your machine's useful lifespan much more quickly at no significant gain to you. It's yet another electrical appliance always on and always ready to set off your smoke alarm or even start an electrical fire.
The first -- yeah. Definitely. But I'm not sure how long my computer is going to last anyway.
The second -- I'd not considered that. It's a good point.
As for the just for convenience thing and the slams -- Linux users aren't the only ones. And it's not just computers. How many people have lots of lights they leave on? A half dozen 60w bulbs burn a lot of energy (and put a lot of heat that has to be cooled off with AC).
I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, but of all their faults, this story is one of the lamest I've heard about him. (However, at least it guarantees that idiot AG won't be on the Supreme Court.)
(Note, look, outright criticism of the Attorney General! Because I think he's a moron, unrelated to this story! Gasp! Shock! Awe!)
Just because I think *this story* is ridiculously overhyped and a unproven speculation doesn't mean I'm a "30%er" (cute slur, though). I'm not "mindlessly defending" them. I think this is a stupid story. Period. Saying I'm mindlessly defending them and not forming an opinion myself just makes you look like a bitter asshole. It's not impossible for me to form my own opinion and think this story isn't what you think it is.
I'm sorry my opinion differs from yours. But don't lump me in with a bunch of die-hard, hardcore Bush supporting morons over this issue. Because frankly, that's a load of crap.
What guarantees porn sites will move? Some of their.com,.net,.org addresses are well known. Why should they have to move?
In a perfect world, I'd agree. But as it stands, it just seems like it would cause a lot of fuss, and then we're just going to get a bunch of assholes arguing about what is and isn't pornographical. And trust me -- those people that would be making the decisions are going to be a bunch of assholes.
And people should start ignoring the "What about the children" people anyway, because almost all the time they're suggesting some nanny-state BS to quash someone else's freedom.
There's also the possibility that in areas without many ISP choices (think rural or countries with bitchy governments) the ISPs will be pushed into blocking all.xxx domains for every customer. This kind of thing is very possible.
Re:Didn't stop Alien, Blade Runner, et. al.
on
The Sci-Fi Movie Stigma
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Okay, this is the third or fourth time I've seen you whining in this discussion about "RTFA." HEY-ZEUS CHRIST.
Dude. This is Slashdot, okay? People don't always read the article. You haven't figured out yet that basically how it works it, the title and summary set the tone for the conversation, and the article is only involved in a tenth of the posts? It works like this:
FLASHY TITLE TO GRAB ATTENTION. Summary of article.
(HUNDREDS OF POSTS of us talking to each other, bitching about the summary, TFA, the title, the spelling and grammar in all of them, a Soviet Russia joke or ten, a few Beowulf cluster jokes, jokes about not getting sex, at least one fanboy flame war, people talking out their ass, a GNAA post moderated down to ALL hell, and maybe even an ASCII representation of a man spreading his anus open)
We're geeks, we're bullshitting, we're just talking and airing our opinions and Sci-Fi is one of those things a majority of Slashdotters have opinions on and most of us are like, to hell with the article, this is what I think.
So what if people mention movies the article lists? So what if we're discussing things the article does?
To quote a Sci-Fi movie:
"This is what I do, darlin'. This is what I do."
WELCOME TO SLASHDOT Your acne and body odor are being fedexed to you.
1. The first article is simply a group asking a question about whether or not there was anything wrong. They're not yet saying there WAS something wrong done.
2. The NYT article is a guy pissed off he got fired. Not exactly an unbiased source. Let him testify under oath and we'll see what comes out.
3. Just because there are 9100 articles on Google News about it doesn't prove wrong doing either -- it proves a lot of people are talking about it. Of course -- it's a media sensation. I'm sure there were hundreds of thousands of articles written about Clinton getting his knob polished, too.
Pointing at 9100 articles and saying "here you find the proof I'm wrong!" isn't going to work, because I'm not the one out there making claims.
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, but of all their faults, this story is one of the lamest I've heard about him. (However, at least it guarantees that idiot AG won't be on the Supreme Court.) But fishy firings and political reasonings? Nothing new.
Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys in 1993, no matter how well respected. So, you can't pretend it is the "Evil Bushitler" and "KKKarl Rove" inventing the idea of firing them.
Slashdot Mirror
You've obviously never been to New Jersey.
I'm not a good enough devil's advocate on this topic to keep going, so instead I'll resort to my tired geek outrage devil's advocate:
why in hell haven't we evolved past needing sleep yet?!
(or, why did the Intelligent Designer make us need sleep?! if you want to annoy IDers.)
Devil's advocate: Why would we evolve something like that?
Yes, it's telling, isn't it, that the current president and administration make Nixon look a "left-wing loony" by contrast?
Eh, when even most Republicans think Bush is a douchebag (even if they won't admit it out of some sort of party-loyalty; I knew Democrats who felt similar about Clinton), it doesn't matter if he makes Nixon look left wing or not. It's when he starts making Nixon look likable that we know the man has fucked up.
Of course, I think most politicians are douchebags, so maybe I'm the wrong guy to comment here...
Still, though -- 500?
Uh.
The DMCA was passed in 1998.
Are you implying Bush has a time machine and went back in time to talk Clinton into signing it?
500 tabs? Jesus Christ.
...what porn sites are you visiting? Urls plz. :)
Try opening 500 IE windows.
Why do you have 500 tabs open?
600K. Wow.
That brings them up to what, a fifth of the 360's sales? Half the Wii's sales?
(note: I don't own either version of the X-Box, nor do I own a PS3 or a Wii.)
Not speaking proper English is apparently cool.
you should start to worry when geometric
Great. A planetary goatse.
He lives at the North Pole. It's cold.
A Gamecube AND Linux at the same time sounds like Christmas to me, anyway...
It's an unnecessary, unethical waste of energy.
So what? With my monitor turned off, my desktop uses a lot less energy. I'm not running a giant 500w power supply though. It's no worse than leaving a few lights on. Also, these are Linux boxes were're talking about -- they're hardly sitting around idle. (Mine is generally running MythTV, downloading one thing or another, etc.)
I like having it do things that I don't want to sit there and wait on.
I don't think security is such a big issue it deserves two points on your list. Again, this is Linux and most people using it are going to make sure there's some extra security; we're not the average user.
It's a poor solution to the problem of long boot times.
That point, I'll concede totally. Leaving your box online just so you don't have to boot it up is a really lame way to deal with it. That said, my Ubuntu install takes roughly the same amount of time as XP, both with no tweaking to the boot process of either.
It uses up your machine's useful lifespan much more quickly at no significant gain to you.
It's yet another electrical appliance always on and always ready to set off your smoke alarm or even start an electrical fire.
The first -- yeah. Definitely. But I'm not sure how long my computer is going to last anyway.
The second -- I'd not considered that. It's a good point.
As for the just for convenience thing and the slams -- Linux users aren't the only ones. And it's not just computers. How many people have lots of lights they leave on? A half dozen 60w bulbs burn a lot of energy (and put a lot of heat that has to be cooled off with AC).
(Note, look, outright criticism of the Attorney General! Because I think he's a moron, unrelated to this story! Gasp! Shock! Awe!)
Just because I think *this story* is ridiculously overhyped and a unproven speculation doesn't mean I'm a "30%er" (cute slur, though). I'm not "mindlessly defending" them. I think this is a stupid story. Period. Saying I'm mindlessly defending them and not forming an opinion myself just makes you look like a bitter asshole. It's not impossible for me to form my own opinion and think this story isn't what you think it is.
I'm sorry my opinion differs from yours. But don't lump me in with a bunch of die-hard, hardcore Bush supporting morons over this issue. Because frankly, that's a load of crap.
What law? American Law? European? Chinese? The United Nations?
Never mind that the Netscape browser was a horrible piece of trash.
Oh thank God. I'm not the only one. I hated Netscape with a passion. Especially the one that would read style sheets and mangle the hell out of it.
Now, of course, I've moved on to hating the IE box model when it comes to css. But NN 4.72 was such a piece of junk and it just refused to die.
Because -- who decides what constitutes porn?
.com, .net, .org addresses are well known. Why should they have to move?
.xxx domains for every customer. This kind of thing is very possible.
What guarantees porn sites will move? Some of their
In a perfect world, I'd agree. But as it stands, it just seems like it would cause a lot of fuss, and then we're just going to get a bunch of assholes arguing about what is and isn't pornographical. And trust me -- those people that would be making the decisions are going to be a bunch of assholes.
And people should start ignoring the "What about the children" people anyway, because almost all the time they're suggesting some nanny-state BS to quash someone else's freedom.
There's also the possibility that in areas without many ISP choices (think rural or countries with bitchy governments) the ISPs will be pushed into blocking all
Okay, this is the third or fourth time I've seen you whining in this discussion about "RTFA." HEY-ZEUS CHRIST.
Dude. This is Slashdot, okay? People don't always read the article. You haven't figured out yet that basically how it works it, the title and summary set the tone for the conversation, and the article is only involved in a tenth of the posts? It works like this:
FLASHY TITLE TO GRAB ATTENTION.
Summary of article.
(HUNDREDS OF POSTS of us talking to each other, bitching about the summary, TFA, the title, the spelling and grammar in all of them, a Soviet Russia joke or ten, a few Beowulf cluster jokes, jokes about not getting sex, at least one fanboy flame war, people talking out their ass, a GNAA post moderated down to ALL hell, and maybe even an ASCII representation of a man spreading his anus open)
We're geeks, we're bullshitting, we're just talking and airing our opinions and Sci-Fi is one of those things a majority of Slashdotters have opinions on and most of us are like, to hell with the article, this is what I think.
So what if people mention movies the article lists? So what if we're discussing things the article does?
To quote a Sci-Fi movie:
"This is what I do, darlin'. This is what I do."
WELCOME TO SLASHDOT
Your acne and body odor are being fedexed to you.
1. The first article is simply a group asking a question about whether or not there was anything wrong. They're not yet saying there WAS something wrong done.
2. The NYT article is a guy pissed off he got fired. Not exactly an unbiased source. Let him testify under oath and we'll see what comes out.
3. Just because there are 9100 articles on Google News about it doesn't prove wrong doing either -- it proves a lot of people are talking about it. Of course -- it's a media sensation. I'm sure there were hundreds of thousands of articles written about Clinton getting his knob polished, too.
Pointing at 9100 articles and saying "here you find the proof I'm wrong!" isn't going to work, because I'm not the one out there making claims.
And: one of the fired attorneys was a Bush loyalist.
RTFA, momo.
This is only an opinion piece, but it has some perspective. SPECIFICALLY:
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, but of all their faults, this story is one of the lamest I've heard about him. (However, at least it guarantees that idiot AG won't be on the Supreme Court.) But fishy firings and political reasonings? Nothing new.
Uh. I DO live in the US. And a lot of people I know don't care.
A lot of them don't even know who Halliburton is.
You just can't go 65mph in first gear in a Civic and expect to get to work.
You obviously don't watch other drivers often...
But I didn't see them, so I'll join the bandwagon:
In Soviet Russia, car drives you.
Except it's not "SOP" because: The US Attorneys are given staggered terms, so they're NOT all replaced at once.
And: Cite anything about them investigating Republicans, or refusing to investigate anything obviously fabricated.
I don't know that the average American gives two shits about where Halliburton is HQed.
Uh.
Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys in 1993, no matter how well respected. So, you can't pretend it is the "Evil Bushitler" and "KKKarl Rove" inventing the idea of firing them.
Thanks for your effort, do try again.
Careful with that logic.
People who want to blame Bush and the Republicans for EVERYTHING aren't going to appreciate it.