I used to do the same, but I discovered some of the best, yet unpopular posts get buried as redundant or off topic. Mods do fear the meta-mods to some extent apparently.
That's a good question. You should find the answer. Most prepared, intelligent debaters make a point of knowing their opponents' viewpoint ahead of time. Most global warming cultists are entirely unaware that an opposing view even exists and that makes them easy targets whenever there is a discussion that their religion views as heresy.
:-) Oh yeah, mod me down. Open minds read at +6 Troll/Flamebait/Redundant/OffTopic anyway.
Must people don't try and add strength to their argument by employing newspeak terms. In the book, newspeak was employed by the antagonist. Unless you are intentionally suggesting that you are the antagonist from 1984, why are you using this vocabulary?
I'm using the term in a descriptive nature. I'm not sure how it could be used to forward my argument.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of
complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies,
to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out,
knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them,
to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying
claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that
the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it
was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again
at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget
it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the
process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to
induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become
unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even
to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of
doublethink....
Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and
accepting both of them.
For those who are familiar with the book, it's clearly defined and I felt doublethink was a much more adequate term to describe this case than hypocrisy. A hypocrite might actually see, concede, and attempt to explain away his use of contradictory logic. Doublethink leaves you unable to even see it. Penguinisto argued for several posts about whether or not such an attitude regarding spam even exists on/. Even after providing several examples to the contrary, he couldn't even touch the point I was making about the hypocritical nature of slashdot posters. In the above post, I spell out the plainly contradictory logic because he is continuing to insistently ignore it. He's a doubleplusgood duckspeaker comrade. He doesn't even need to think. His argument emanates solely from his larynx, or his fingertips in this case. It's a simple reflex. No brain activity required.
The original posters point is that are there not three people involved in a p2p transaction. There are only two. The poster rejects the concept of "imaginary property" and the concept of copyright. So do I. The law is wrong.
And now you're doing it too. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of P2P. That is off topic. I'm pointing out that/. readers, on the whole, are a bunch of hypocrites. They are against disconnecting users for suspected illegal P2P use, but in favor of disconnecting users suspected of sending unsolicited commercial email. Legitimate and illegitimate uses of both protocols are equally difficult to distinguish. Yet most of you are perfectly fine with that, or at least you will be until some legislator exploits your hypocrisy to create laws regarding one only to embrace/extend/extinguish the other. It's obvious to me what will happen, and most of you will never see it coming until it's far too late. Either you defend everyone's right to free speech, or you are not defending free speech.
Is that your sample size? A single +5 post out of a thousand?
No, I'm basing it on past experience. I've had plenty of discussions on this topic. Have a look at the parent of the post I linked there. Mr 4 digit ID Eric Smith suggest torture for suspected spammers. Others cheer on murder of suspected spammers. Disconnecting suspected spammers is a rather tame by comparison. I'm sure they'd be all for it, privacy be damned. Would anyone else like to dispute the -plainly obvious- slashdot sentiment regarding spammers?
Um, actually, the headline reads "Swedish ISP Blocks Computers That Send Spam." You're assuming that they are trojaned computers and not voluntary installs of "Make millions working from home" bots designed to send spam, just like the submitter did. What we know with certainty is: ISP blocks computers that send spam. The rest is conjecture. And with that came plenty of cheers from the slashdot crowd happy that they were doing it with no regard to privacy.
I noticed you conveniently ignored the score 1 privacy posts I pointed out. I've provided what you asked and now you're moving the bar. Will you continue to move the bar until I'm required to collect signed affidavits from more that 50% of slashbots for you to accept what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read anything regarding spam and P2P at this website? I don't think I'll jump through any more of your flaming hoops. I'm sure you have an endless supply.
No, I believe I followed that by pointing out you are assuming legal traffic on P2P and illegal traffic on email to justify your stance. There are both spam and legitimate mailing lists. How does an ISP know the difference? They don't know any more than they know the difference between a Linux ISO and a copy of a hollywood movie. It's doublethink. Sorry if you weren't bright enough to catch that one. I'll try to spell everything out for you in this post so you can keep up.
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily.
You keep ignoring that there are three parties involved in the P2P issue. The copyright owners in many cases have not agreed to anything in respect to the distribution of their imaginary property. You don't win any debate by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "NAH NAH NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Besides, what does the Recording Industry Association of America have to do with asking (let alone demanding) anything from a British ISP, genius?
That's right, nitpick the semantics because you're losing the argument. Maybe you'd like to point out a few errors in my spelling or punctuation next?
An example (relevant this time, plz) would be nice
The fact that you're denying the sentiment even exists suggests you're being disingenuous. I believe I've provided you with adequate examples at this point. Feel free to shout strawman until you're blue in the face though. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it come true.
Ok Penguinisto, I'll google it for you. How about this story. Wow, look at all the "Insightful" comments. More ISPs should do this... blah blah blah. Hypocrites. The little bit of discussion about privacy that exists there is not in the +5 Interesting comments, it's in the unrated/buried comments. I'd say that's pretty clear evidence that slashdot, in general, is not terribly concerned about privacy when it comes to eliminating spam. Care to add anything to discussion, or simple deny fact after fact as though they didn't exist?
Err, you do know that there is a difference between voluntarily downloading something between two consenting parties (P2P user and peer(s)), and blasting unwanted crap out to unwilling recipients (spam), right?
That's nice doublethink you have there. I didn't realize the RIAA was consenting to your file sharing. Oh, that's right... they aren't. That's why they propose disconnecting anyone suspected of illegally sharing files. Just like slashbots would propose that ISPs disconnect anyone suspected of illegally sending unsolicited email. Like I said, pure hypocrisy.
Do you really think what motivated Edison's creations was solely a profit motive?
No.
Most of these people would have been writing books/songs, creating inventions and what not regardless of copyright and patent laws.
I couldn't agree more. I'd go even further and say most of these people are creating *in spite of* copyright law. If you look at who benefits most from copyright law, you'll see it is generally the publisher/distributor and not the actual creator. Copyright law is not about making sure the artist gets paid, it's about limiting your first amendment rights. It's about letting a handful of publishers decide on what books are read and what books never see the light of day. Thanks to copyright law, the distributors frequently and consistently screw the creators on a regular basis.
They get lifetime plus 50 years! How stupid do we look? It's in the Berne convention, and that lying sack of shit Charlie McCreevy knows better.
The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection.
Lifetime is bad enough. It's an indeterminate period of time instead of fixed, and the whole point of copyright is to encourage innovation! Lifetime doesn't encourage innovation. Imagine if patents worked that way and Edison decided to rest on he laurels after the phonograph. There would be no motion picture camera, no light bulb, and no electric grid.
Go straight to hell Charlie McCreevy! Just die and go straight to fucking hell.
Funny how they can afford spy satellites to peep in on the citizenry, but budget cuts are hampering the ISS. Maybe we can build a few more spy satellites to protect America and let those useless weather satellites crash into the ocean next.
What good are new laws or guidelines if they go unenforced? Man in the middle attacks are already illegal, but Comcast continues unabated. It's like having a Constitution that law makers ignore. Until someone goes to prison for ignoring it, its value becomes symbolic at best.
Maybe we could create some sort of "Digital Rights Management" software that allows us to control how others use our content...
(^_~) You know, sometimes you guys are real hypocrites. Where are the legions of slashbots shouting "Information wants to be free." If you didn't want to share it with the world, you should have kept it to yourself.
AListApart.com is my fav. It's code, it's style, it has explanations and step by step examples. I really enjoy reading that site. It focuses on making compliant code and code that works with the not so compliant browsers that people actually use, all at the same time.
I would just like to know if the antivirus vendors purposely cripple their products for Big Brother. If so, it's only a matter of time before some clever black hat exploits that fact, assuming of course, that it isn't already happening.
The Fed? Inflation is high because your dollar went to shit because of your deficit. It's simple supply and demand, and the Fed controls the supply of dollars. You are only pointing out one reason the Fed is creating money at a much greater rate than real growth. There is no gold standard or any other system of checks and balances in place to keep the Fed honest. The Fed is root. Their policy is ultimately responsible for all inflation/deflation in the US dollar. The fact that you point to the trade deficit as the reason for the plummeting value of the dollar illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of American economics. You aren't alone. Most of the world has been snowed, or they wouldn't be accepting those little green IOUs.
If Ron Paul could have stopped the Iraq war he damn well should have. That's rather non-sequitur. I don't recall mentioning Iraq in my last message.... Are you sure you aren't just trolling?
Your national visa card is approaching 5 trillion dollars. That's the problem. That's nothing. Central banks created $400 billion dollars out of thin air between Aug. 9 and Aug. 21 of 2007. They called it "Injecting liquidity" to "stabilize the markets." In other words, hide a market crash by devaluing the currency. You only have to look at commodity prices rocketing skyward to see it. So as long as you're stupid enough to continue accepting greenbacks, it isn't a problem at all.
When the Fed decided to stop printing the M3 report, Ron Paul was the only person who attempted to stop them two years ago. Anyone who cared could see the Fed was going to fuck every single American via inflation, and Ron Paul was the only one on the hill who gave a shit. Inflation is now at the highest it has been in more than three decades. Ron Paul tried to prevent it.
This "interview" is thoroughly disappointing.
To me, if you're picking a candidate based on their words rather than looking at their actions in the legislature, then your vote will be an uninformed one.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to do the same, but I discovered some of the best, yet unpopular posts get buried as redundant or off topic. Mods do fear the meta-mods to some extent apparently.
That's a good question. You should find the answer. Most prepared, intelligent debaters make a point of knowing their opponents' viewpoint ahead of time. Most global warming cultists are entirely unaware that an opposing view even exists and that makes them easy targets whenever there is a discussion that their religion views as heresy.
:-) Oh yeah, mod me down. Open minds read at +6 Troll/Flamebait/Redundant/OffTopic anyway.
more narrow minded religion in public schools. Wonderful.
I'm using the term in a descriptive nature. I'm not sure how it could be used to forward my argument.
For those who are familiar with the book, it's clearly defined and I felt doublethink was a much more adequate term to describe this case than hypocrisy. A hypocrite might actually see, concede, and attempt to explain away his use of contradictory logic. Doublethink leaves you unable to even see it. Penguinisto argued for several posts about whether or not such an attitude regarding spam even exists on /. Even after providing several examples to the contrary, he couldn't even touch the point I was making about the hypocritical nature of slashdot posters. In the above post, I spell out the plainly contradictory logic because he is continuing to insistently ignore it. He's a doubleplusgood duckspeaker comrade. He doesn't even need to think. His argument emanates solely from his larynx, or his fingertips in this case. It's a simple reflex. No brain activity required.
The original posters point is that are there not three people involved in a p2p transaction. There are only two. The poster rejects the concept of "imaginary property" and the concept of copyright. So do I. The law is wrong.And now you're doing it too. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of P2P. That is off topic. I'm pointing out that /. readers, on the whole, are a bunch of hypocrites. They are against disconnecting users for suspected illegal P2P use, but in favor of disconnecting users suspected of sending unsolicited commercial email. Legitimate and illegitimate uses of both protocols are equally difficult to distinguish. Yet most of you are perfectly fine with that, or at least you will be until some legislator exploits your hypocrisy to create laws regarding one only to embrace/extend/extinguish the other. It's obvious to me what will happen, and most of you will never see it coming until it's far too late. Either you defend everyone's right to free speech, or you are not defending free speech.
No, I'm basing it on past experience. I've had plenty of discussions on this topic. Have a look at the parent of the post I linked there. Mr 4 digit ID Eric Smith suggest torture for suspected spammers. Others cheer on murder of suspected spammers. Disconnecting suspected spammers is a rather tame by comparison. I'm sure they'd be all for it, privacy be damned. Would anyone else like to dispute the -plainly obvious- slashdot sentiment regarding spammers?
Um, actually, the headline reads "Swedish ISP Blocks Computers That Send Spam." You're assuming that they are trojaned computers and not voluntary installs of "Make millions working from home" bots designed to send spam, just like the submitter did. What we know with certainty is: ISP blocks computers that send spam. The rest is conjecture. And with that came plenty of cheers from the slashdot crowd happy that they were doing it with no regard to privacy.
I noticed you conveniently ignored the score 1 privacy posts I pointed out. I've provided what you asked and now you're moving the bar. Will you continue to move the bar until I'm required to collect signed affidavits from more that 50% of slashbots for you to accept what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read anything regarding spam and P2P at this website? I don't think I'll jump through any more of your flaming hoops. I'm sure you have an endless supply.
No, I believe I followed that by pointing out you are assuming legal traffic on P2P and illegal traffic on email to justify your stance. There are both spam and legitimate mailing lists. How does an ISP know the difference? They don't know any more than they know the difference between a Linux ISO and a copy of a hollywood movie. It's doublethink. Sorry if you weren't bright enough to catch that one. I'll try to spell everything out for you in this post so you can keep up.
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily.You keep ignoring that there are three parties involved in the P2P issue. The copyright owners in many cases have not agreed to anything in respect to the distribution of their imaginary property. You don't win any debate by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "NAH NAH NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Besides, what does the Recording Industry Association of America have to do with asking (let alone demanding) anything from a British ISP, genius?That's right, nitpick the semantics because you're losing the argument. Maybe you'd like to point out a few errors in my spelling or punctuation next?
An example (relevant this time, plz) would be niceThe fact that you're denying the sentiment even exists suggests you're being disingenuous. I believe I've provided you with adequate examples at this point. Feel free to shout strawman until you're blue in the face though. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it come true.
Ok Penguinisto, I'll google it for you. How about this story. Wow, look at all the "Insightful" comments. More ISPs should do this... blah blah blah. Hypocrites. The little bit of discussion about privacy that exists there is not in the +5 Interesting comments, it's in the unrated/buried comments. I'd say that's pretty clear evidence that slashdot, in general, is not terribly concerned about privacy when it comes to eliminating spam. Care to add anything to discussion, or simple deny fact after fact as though they didn't exist?
That's nice doublethink you have there. I didn't realize the RIAA was consenting to your file sharing. Oh, that's right... they aren't. That's why they propose disconnecting anyone suspected of illegally sharing files. Just like slashbots would propose that ISPs disconnect anyone suspected of illegally sending unsolicited email. Like I said, pure hypocrisy.
You must be new here. Read all about it. Try the first post, +5 Insightful. Care to make any other ridiculous attempts at an indignant response.
most of /. would cheer this on. Pure hypocrisy.
It's already life+... He's lying.
No.
Most of these people would have been writing books/songs, creating inventions and what not regardless of copyright and patent laws.I couldn't agree more. I'd go even further and say most of these people are creating *in spite of* copyright law. If you look at who benefits most from copyright law, you'll see it is generally the publisher/distributor and not the actual creator. Copyright law is not about making sure the artist gets paid, it's about limiting your first amendment rights. It's about letting a handful of publishers decide on what books are read and what books never see the light of day. Thanks to copyright law, the distributors frequently and consistently screw the creators on a regular basis.
Because 2.9% is lower than inflation. Duh! Wanker.
They get lifetime plus 50 years! How stupid do we look? It's in the Berne convention, and that lying sack of shit Charlie McCreevy knows better.
The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection.Lifetime is bad enough. It's an indeterminate period of time instead of fixed, and the whole point of copyright is to encourage innovation! Lifetime doesn't encourage innovation. Imagine if patents worked that way and Edison decided to rest on he laurels after the phonograph. There would be no motion picture camera, no light bulb, and no electric grid.
Go straight to hell Charlie McCreevy! Just die and go straight to fucking hell.
Funny how they can afford spy satellites to peep in on the citizenry, but budget cuts are hampering the ISS. Maybe we can build a few more spy satellites to protect America and let those useless weather satellites crash into the ocean next.
What good are new laws or guidelines if they go unenforced? Man in the middle attacks are already illegal, but Comcast continues unabated. It's like having a Constitution that law makers ignore. Until someone goes to prison for ignoring it, its value becomes symbolic at best.
Most of /. would be cheering it on. That's what we call hypocrisy kids.
Maybe we could create some sort of "Digital Rights Management" software that allows us to control how others use our content...
(^_~) You know, sometimes you guys are real hypocrites. Where are the legions of slashbots shouting "Information wants to be free." If you didn't want to share it with the world, you should have kept it to yourself.
What about the one's that don't? I think we should boycott the law.
AListApart.com is my fav. It's code, it's style, it has explanations and step by step examples. I really enjoy reading that site. It focuses on making compliant code and code that works with the not so compliant browsers that people actually use, all at the same time.
I would just like to know if the antivirus vendors purposely cripple their products for Big Brother. If so, it's only a matter of time before some clever black hat exploits that fact, assuming of course, that it isn't already happening.
Given these things are fab'ed in Red China, which government would you be referring to?
When the Fed decided to stop printing the M3 report, Ron Paul was the only person who attempted to stop them two years ago. Anyone who cared could see the Fed was going to fuck every single American via inflation, and Ron Paul was the only one on the hill who gave a shit. Inflation is now at the highest it has been in more than three decades. Ron Paul tried to prevent it.
This "interview" is thoroughly disappointing.
To me, if you're picking a candidate based on their words rather than looking at their actions in the legislature, then your vote will be an uninformed one.