It's what people should have done in the 60s, but didn't have the technology.
It's what you people DID do in the country for decades. And you lost. Now all you can do is spew out your power fantasy wet dream on the internet, because the FBI will own your ass if you try it in the real world.
The 1960s are over, the darkies and hippies won. The 1860s are over, the yankees won. Either get over it, or get ready lose again in the 2060s.
Come on, the Democrats even had Superman in his wheel chair at their 1996 convention!;) In the Cold War, Dark Knight Returns era, you are definitely right about Batman and Superman.
On the other hand, I remember an essay (that I can't find now) contrasting the law enforcement styles of Batman and Superman--Superman announces his presense, asks for his target to surrender, and then goes in. Other than using his X-Ray vision without a warrant, Superman probably wouldn't find himself in trouble with the ACLU too often. Superman works to protect the innocent.
Batman, not having the luxury of complete invincibility, tends to sneak in and stealthily beat the crap out of everyone. Like a SWAT team, but with battarangs instead of assault rifles. He fights for Order (if not Law) at any cost, and has a serious vendetta against all criminal scum. He could be said to have (and be a primary cause of) "mean society syndrome". Batman works to punish the guilty.
So when an issue like the Iraq war comes up, Batman and Superman are kind of torn. Batman likes to punish terrorist scum, and loves operating outside UN rules--but is probably deeply cynical of neoconservative nation building. Superman loves America and probably loves neoconservatism as well--but he also loves following the rules, and America is definitely not following the rules in Iraq.
Superman may be a farm boy, but he's also an EX-farm boy. Bible-belt expatriates, like Cuban and Iraqi exiles, are sometimes rather bitter about what went on in their homelands. He's a jounalist in Metropolis now--how conservative can one expect him to be?
How about neighbors taping the vigilantes from their windows? Don't you think the cops would lose a bit of credibility if they were in the habit of calling in vigilantes or swat teams to deal with nonviolent offenders? I mean, yeah, if we go back to the KKK days of masked terrorists lynching people and the whole country going along with it, we're fucked, flash mob or no flash mob. But until things go that far, protests might work pretty well.
Civil disobedience is the ONLY hope of change in America. Sure, they've put a whole lot of people in jail. Quite a few of them unjustly. But the vast majority of us still walk free. Even the vast majority of people who went to the protests you name.
Maybe the jackboots don't care about public perception, but the public certainly does. If the opposition keeps bringing cameras to document peaceful protestors illegally attacked by police--and perhaps if protestors start policing themselves and establish clear guidelines to be followed to distinguish themselves from agent provacateurs--the maybe you'll be able to show the public who is more trustworthy.
On the other hand, if the opposition abandons civil disobediance and tries to answer violence with violence, then the public will see that they are merely choosing between two sets of thugs. If the only alternative to facism and corporate dominance is violence and rage, then how can you expect people to care about anything more than whether the trains run on time?
Remember, the American military is, far and away, the most powerful military in the world. The fact that you protestors are still alive is proof--our government is STILL afraid of civil disobedience. Throw away civil disobedience and you've lost the war.
When you see the police in their riot armor and gas masks, with their tazers and guns, behind their shields--it should be obvious to you who is afraid of who. When they come to arrest you, stay calm. Concentrate on the pity you feel for your aggressors--who only beat you in order to mask their own fear and powerlessness in the face of your truth.
In the 90s we all sang the praises of intellectual capital. In the 00s, perhaps we will realize that the real mental capital--the only true scarcity in our world--is honesty, honor, and self-restraint. If you can prove to the world that you have those things, the world will follow you. The fact that our government is not known for honesty right now should make things easier for those practicing civil disobediance.
So are the instructions for how to do this processing embedded within the DNG format, or do programs viewing and manipulating DNG files have to be constantly updated for every new camera release, in order to properly process additional metadata?
Or, to paraphrase, is it possible for camera manufacturers to produce "standard" DNG files that aren't actually viewable on anything other than that camera's included software without reverse engineering proprietary metadata?
There's a big difference between parks and TV specturm. Parks can be used by all, TV spectrum has been allocated to a handful of corporations. For their privileges of broadcasting, which most of us cannot enjoy, those corporations have an obligation to serve the public. Like I said, not a Free Speech issue at all. The Supreme Court agrees with me.
And that's what's weird about Keyes is that if he were here right now, he would insist that OUR position is equivalent to slavery and segregation. Somehow. I'm not sure how he would, but he would.
R-T-F-Post-You-Replied-To. Nothing you say here contradicts the supposed "Windows troll", but it DOES contradict both the slashdot write-up and the news.com article. You're either inconsistent or illiterate. Choose wisely.
It's time zones. They start counting votes in the Eastern states when Eastern pools close, and sometimes announce the results before states to the west finish. So if New England was called for Bush, at 20:00 EST, then people still voting at 17:00 in California will know Bush will probably win. This time around, that doesn't seem likely--it's probably gonna be close until polls close in California, and we Easterners will have to wake up Nov. 3 to find out who won. Or sometime in December if it's like 2000.
It sucks, they should wait until all polls are closed to announce exit polls. I'm not sure if they tried to pass a law to that effect--the First Amendment (Free Speech) may not permit such a restriction.
The man used to be known for his great oratory skill, even in defense of a fanatically right-wing agenda. In his saner days he would have made a good speech writer for--I dunno, some non-crazy Republican. In fact, when I saw Obama's speech at the convention, it actually reminded me of Keyes. But public speaking was his only skill-he failed twice in a bid for a seat as Maryland's senator. In fact, he's kind of a professional failure, using his Quixotic political campaigns to get attention, then go back to talk radio or whatever. He's ALWAYS hated polls, because he always loses. But there's a glut of people like that in both parties.
He's got a strange kind of intellectual honesty--I believe he's brought up that comparison to Hillary himself several times in his Illinois campaign. He believes what he's saying and always manages to make a fairly convincing argument for it.
It's just too bad that what he says is complete madness. Calling Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner because she loves a woman? It may be a logically consistent point of view, Alan, but it's still a fucking monstrously bigotted point of view. Even though it was clear from the start that Obama would win, I was still excited to here Keyes was going against him. But that excitement turned to sickness when I heard that Cheney sound bite.
1996 Alan Keyes would have been an entertaining nemesis for Obama. He was a social conservative, but he was also rather liberatarian. What was so interesting about him was how his speeches managed to tie that apparent contradictions together into a coherent ideology. He was a smart fellow, and I wish he would have made the same conversion to semi-reasonability that Pat Buchanan has made now that Bush has led Republicans into the seas of madness. But, I should have known, the neoconservative fantasies of the Iraq war are exactly the sort insanity-as-idealism that appeals to him. I hope this campaign is the last we hear of Keyes.
In particular, an awful lot of Senator and Governor races are basically non-races--anyone could have predicted the outcome without any polls at all. We look to the polls only when its not already obvious who's going to win--and maybe that's the 16% of the time. On the other hand, more polls are probably taken in closer races, so maybe the 16% is actually a really great figure. That article just doesn't tell us enough information. On electoral-vote.com they listed the major polls from the 2000 election, and only two out of 10 or so predicted Al Gore would win the popular vote.
Umm...right, so maybe we should just have paper trails and decide whatever we want on the unrelated polling issue? The 2002 Georgia election polls all were surprised, but no one managed to contest the elections there, so I don't think the polls buy you anything in terms of legitimacy. If you've been hearing some of the discussions over cell phones and renormalizing political parties in polls, you might not have such faith in them yourself.
I don't consider the FCC regulation of television and radio broadcasters a free speech issue--airwaves belong to the people, and the people's representatives have spoken--no nipples. Sorry, Football is for kids too.
Not that I like Bush's FCC. I'd like someone to punch Michael Powell in the face for what he's done to allow further media consolidation (DISCLAIMER NOT A LEGALLY BINDING THREAT JUST HYPERBOLE PLEASE DO NOT ARREST ME).
And everyone said "yeah, Bush is inexperienced and maybe won't be so great, but he'll have great advisors and he's going to listen to them"?
Yeah, I remember Colin Powell making fun of Madeline Albright for being an nation-building interventionist. I voted Bush last time for basically the reason you describe. The logic doesn't apply to Kerry because it shouldn't have applied to Bush. Advisors on topics the candidate doesn't particularly care about are easily ignored. And to be honest I didn't find anything particularly thrilling about the Kerry responses, anyway. I'm still voting for Kerry (my broken grammar may have made that unclear) but Iraq is a lot more important to me than Silicon Valley when I walk into the voting booth this year.
Why is it that when President Bush obtains the advice and consent of Congress to go to war he is criticized and ridiculed, but when President Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol in defiance of a unanimous Senate who tells him it will not consent to the treaty, he is praised?
Actually, both presidents got what they wanted from Congress. Bush wanted a mandate from Congress to take to the UN. Clinton probably tried to Good Cop/Bad Cop the rest of the world (American foreign policy is actually pretty clever with that trick).
But in both cases they failed in the larger picture--Bush never got the rest of the world to buy into Iraq, and American never managed to get a version of Kyoto it liked ready for signing.
With Kyoto, though, I think Bush messed up. Shortly after the US rejected it, the rest of the world ratified a seriously weakened version of the treaty. It seems to me if Bush had been a bit more clever he could have pressured Europe et. al. into accepting a more America-friendly (forests-as-carbon-sinks and other tricks) version of Kyoto passed, and at the same time turned it into a credibility gain for the U.S. Instead, he just said "fuck off", and the rest of the world proved it didn't need us after all anyway when it ratified it.
That seems to always be a common result of Bush's saber rattling--we never get what we want, and we look like crazy idiots.
Also, the much of the rest of the world still has laws about media fairness and impartiality and so we don't get relentless repetition of the GOP's weekly talking points passing as news.
What country are you referring to as "the rest of the world"? I am American, but I'd heard most European newspapers are blatantly partisan one direction or another. Whatever the media consolidation situation in America, it can't be as bad as Berlusconi and his family's control of media in Italy, or Putin's control of nearly everything in Russia. (Though it is funny how Bush tends to have pleasant things to say about those two guys.)
It's not that the media is biased Republican--it's that Americans in times of war, like many people across the globe, have a tendency to cling to the leader in times of trouble. Now we've just got a leader who intentionally gets us into trouble to take advantage of that.
It's true, Bush's responses were just excepts from his webpage or speeches or whatever. But Kerry's answers actually seemed TOO good--someone in the Kerry campaign who knew something about technology took the time to research each question and develop a decent answer. Now, that person probably DIDN't go on to brief Kerry about "Kerry's" answers in some computer magazine about issues Kerry has most likely never thought about and never will. Do you think the senator even knows what Spyware is? The answers name dropped specific court decisions and even grid computing.
Now, I'm a huge Kerry supporter, and to be honest I'm not even sure how a decent person could vote Bush--the candidate of bigotry, plutocracy, and jingoism. I'm a conservative, therefore I oppose all those plan to vote Kerry. But I don't take these Kerry answers seriously for even a moment. Neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush need to know what the hell Grid computing is. In fact, I think I'd be better off not knowing what it is as well. "Buzzword compliant" is not a complement.
Yeah, so its not the slashdot headline that's misleading, its that the entire news.com(.com) story is just wrong. None of the quotes from Microsoft, expecially the one you've requoted, tell me they won't bring security patches to other versions of Windows. A security patch is not an enhancement.
Provides that any person, except a minor, located in California who, knowing that a particular recording or audiovisual work is commercial, knowingly electronically disseminates all or substantially all of that recording or work without disclosing his/her e-mail address and the title of the recording or work, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to a year in county jail.
This is the only problem I have with this bill--it seems really draconian. I mean, speeding on the highway actually endangers people's lives, but I'm not going to spend a year in jail for my first offense, am I?
Then again, it's more reasonable than getting sent to jail for the rest of your life for shoplifting three times--which I'm told they also do in California.
Question: does anything stop these airline companies from exchanging this information (other than the CC number, perhaps) with each other? Does it really make sense for us to fear giving to our elected officials information that we already allow unelected corporations to play with to their hearts content?
I think it's time we realize--what the U.S. government knows is a superset of what any American corporation knows. If you give any information to any corporation at all, you should just expect the government can get their grubby hands on it at will. There is no law requiring a corporation to withold information requested by the government--or even to tell customers such information has been requested--even if the government has no right to compel such a revelation.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, Anonymous Coward, you win the Best Slashdot Post of the Day Award!
It's what you people DID do in the country for decades. And you lost. Now all you can do is spew out your power fantasy wet dream on the internet, because the FBI will own your ass if you try it in the real world.
The 1960s are over, the darkies and hippies won. The 1860s are over, the yankees won. Either get over it, or get ready lose again in the 2060s.
Come on, the Democrats even had Superman in his wheel chair at their 1996 convention! ;) In the Cold War, Dark Knight Returns era, you are definitely right about Batman and Superman.
On the other hand, I remember an essay (that I can't find now) contrasting the law enforcement styles of Batman and Superman--Superman announces his presense, asks for his target to surrender, and then goes in. Other than using his X-Ray vision without a warrant, Superman probably wouldn't find himself in trouble with the ACLU too often. Superman works to protect the innocent.
Batman, not having the luxury of complete invincibility, tends to sneak in and stealthily beat the crap out of everyone. Like a SWAT team, but with battarangs instead of assault rifles. He fights for Order (if not Law) at any cost, and has a serious vendetta against all criminal scum. He could be said to have (and be a primary cause of) "mean society syndrome". Batman works to punish the guilty.
So when an issue like the Iraq war comes up, Batman and Superman are kind of torn. Batman likes to punish terrorist scum, and loves operating outside UN rules--but is probably deeply cynical of neoconservative nation building. Superman loves America and probably loves neoconservatism as well--but he also loves following the rules, and America is definitely not following the rules in Iraq.
Superman may be a farm boy, but he's also an EX-farm boy. Bible-belt expatriates, like Cuban and Iraqi exiles, are sometimes rather bitter about what went on in their homelands. He's a jounalist in Metropolis now--how conservative can one expect him to be?
How about neighbors taping the vigilantes from their windows? Don't you think the cops would lose a bit of credibility if they were in the habit of calling in vigilantes or swat teams to deal with nonviolent offenders? I mean, yeah, if we go back to the KKK days of masked terrorists lynching people and the whole country going along with it, we're fucked, flash mob or no flash mob. But until things go that far, protests might work pretty well.
Maybe the jackboots don't care about public perception, but the public certainly does. If the opposition keeps bringing cameras to document peaceful protestors illegally attacked by police--and perhaps if protestors start policing themselves and establish clear guidelines to be followed to distinguish themselves from agent provacateurs--the maybe you'll be able to show the public who is more trustworthy.
On the other hand, if the opposition abandons civil disobediance and tries to answer violence with violence, then the public will see that they are merely choosing between two sets of thugs. If the only alternative to facism and corporate dominance is violence and rage, then how can you expect people to care about anything more than whether the trains run on time?
Remember, the American military is, far and away, the most powerful military in the world. The fact that you protestors are still alive is proof--our government is STILL afraid of civil disobedience. Throw away civil disobedience and you've lost the war.
When you see the police in their riot armor and gas masks, with their tazers and guns, behind their shields--it should be obvious to you who is afraid of who. When they come to arrest you, stay calm. Concentrate on the pity you feel for your aggressors--who only beat you in order to mask their own fear and powerlessness in the face of your truth.
In the 90s we all sang the praises of intellectual capital. In the 00s, perhaps we will realize that the real mental capital--the only true scarcity in our world--is honesty, honor, and self-restraint. If you can prove to the world that you have those things, the world will follow you. The fact that our government is not known for honesty right now should make things easier for those practicing civil disobediance.
Or, to paraphrase, is it possible for camera manufacturers to produce "standard" DNG files that aren't actually viewable on anything other than that camera's included software without reverse engineering proprietary metadata?
There's a big difference between parks and TV specturm. Parks can be used by all, TV spectrum has been allocated to a handful of corporations. For their privileges of broadcasting, which most of us cannot enjoy, those corporations have an obligation to serve the public. Like I said, not a Free Speech issue at all. The Supreme Court agrees with me.
And that's what's weird about Keyes is that if he were here right now, he would insist that OUR position is equivalent to slavery and segregation. Somehow. I'm not sure how he would, but he would.
Not all the polls managed to get within the margin of error.
Ummmm....he's running for Senator, not for Preacher. Everything he says is the business of government. The confusion is not ours.
R-T-F-Post-You-Replied-To. Nothing you say here contradicts the supposed "Windows troll", but it DOES contradict both the slashdot write-up and the news.com article. You're either inconsistent or illiterate. Choose wisely.
It sucks, they should wait until all polls are closed to announce exit polls. I'm not sure if they tried to pass a law to that effect--the First Amendment (Free Speech) may not permit such a restriction.
He's got a strange kind of intellectual honesty--I believe he's brought up that comparison to Hillary himself several times in his Illinois campaign. He believes what he's saying and always manages to make a fairly convincing argument for it.
It's just too bad that what he says is complete madness. Calling Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner because she loves a woman? It may be a logically consistent point of view, Alan, but it's still a fucking monstrously bigotted point of view. Even though it was clear from the start that Obama would win, I was still excited to here Keyes was going against him. But that excitement turned to sickness when I heard that Cheney sound bite.
1996 Alan Keyes would have been an entertaining nemesis for Obama. He was a social conservative, but he was also rather liberatarian. What was so interesting about him was how his speeches managed to tie that apparent contradictions together into a coherent ideology. He was a smart fellow, and I wish he would have made the same conversion to semi-reasonability that Pat Buchanan has made now that Bush has led Republicans into the seas of madness. But, I should have known, the neoconservative fantasies of the Iraq war are exactly the sort insanity-as-idealism that appeals to him. I hope this campaign is the last we hear of Keyes.
In particular, an awful lot of Senator and Governor races are basically non-races--anyone could have predicted the outcome without any polls at all. We look to the polls only when its not already obvious who's going to win--and maybe that's the 16% of the time. On the other hand, more polls are probably taken in closer races, so maybe the 16% is actually a really great figure. That article just doesn't tell us enough information. On electoral-vote.com they listed the major polls from the 2000 election, and only two out of 10 or so predicted Al Gore would win the popular vote.
Umm...right, so maybe we should just have paper trails and decide whatever we want on the unrelated polling issue? The 2002 Georgia election polls all were surprised, but no one managed to contest the elections there, so I don't think the polls buy you anything in terms of legitimacy. If you've been hearing some of the discussions over cell phones and renormalizing political parties in polls, you might not have such faith in them yourself.
Not that I like Bush's FCC. I'd like someone to punch Michael Powell in the face for what he's done to allow further media consolidation (DISCLAIMER NOT A LEGALLY BINDING THREAT JUST HYPERBOLE PLEASE DO NOT ARREST ME).
Yeah, I remember Colin Powell making fun of Madeline Albright for being an nation-building interventionist. I voted Bush last time for basically the reason you describe. The logic doesn't apply to Kerry because it shouldn't have applied to Bush. Advisors on topics the candidate doesn't particularly care about are easily ignored. And to be honest I didn't find anything particularly thrilling about the Kerry responses, anyway. I'm still voting for Kerry (my broken grammar may have made that unclear) but Iraq is a lot more important to me than Silicon Valley when I walk into the voting booth this year.
OOPS, it appears that I omitted an "and" conjunction between therefore I oppose all those and plan to vote Kerry. Well deserved cheap shot noted ;).
Actually, both presidents got what they wanted from Congress. Bush wanted a mandate from Congress to take to the UN. Clinton probably tried to Good Cop/Bad Cop the rest of the world (American foreign policy is actually pretty clever with that trick).
But in both cases they failed in the larger picture--Bush never got the rest of the world to buy into Iraq, and American never managed to get a version of Kyoto it liked ready for signing.
With Kyoto, though, I think Bush messed up. Shortly after the US rejected it, the rest of the world ratified a seriously weakened version of the treaty. It seems to me if Bush had been a bit more clever he could have pressured Europe et. al. into accepting a more America-friendly (forests-as-carbon-sinks and other tricks) version of Kyoto passed, and at the same time turned it into a credibility gain for the U.S. Instead, he just said "fuck off", and the rest of the world proved it didn't need us after all anyway when it ratified it.
That seems to always be a common result of Bush's saber rattling--we never get what we want, and we look like crazy idiots.
What country are you referring to as "the rest of the world"? I am American, but I'd heard most European newspapers are blatantly partisan one direction or another. Whatever the media consolidation situation in America, it can't be as bad as Berlusconi and his family's control of media in Italy, or Putin's control of nearly everything in Russia. (Though it is funny how Bush tends to have pleasant things to say about those two guys.)
It's not that the media is biased Republican--it's that Americans in times of war, like many people across the globe, have a tendency to cling to the leader in times of trouble. Now we've just got a leader who intentionally gets us into trouble to take advantage of that.
Now, I'm a huge Kerry supporter, and to be honest I'm not even sure how a decent person could vote Bush--the candidate of bigotry, plutocracy, and jingoism. I'm a conservative, therefore I oppose all those plan to vote Kerry. But I don't take these Kerry answers seriously for even a moment. Neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush need to know what the hell Grid computing is. In fact, I think I'd be better off not knowing what it is as well. "Buzzword compliant" is not a complement.
Much as I hate MS, they can't be THAT crazy.
This is the only problem I have with this bill--it seems really draconian. I mean, speeding on the highway actually endangers people's lives, but I'm not going to spend a year in jail for my first offense, am I?
Then again, it's more reasonable than getting sent to jail for the rest of your life for shoplifting three times--which I'm told they also do in California.
I think it's time we realize--what the U.S. government knows is a superset of what any American corporation knows. If you give any information to any corporation at all, you should just expect the government can get their grubby hands on it at will. There is no law requiring a corporation to withold information requested by the government--or even to tell customers such information has been requested--even if the government has no right to compel such a revelation.