Speaking as a theoretical linguist, Québecois is not a language, but a dialect of French. Parisian French is also a dialect of French. The two dialects, while they have somewhat different pronunciation and vocabulary, are still mutually intelligible.
Sorry, didn't expect the nitpicks. One day, I will learn.:)
What I should have meant is, the dilemma in Québec is whether the usage of Québecois is legitimate and should be allowed and perhaps enforced by public schools, or banned and fought. There's a lot of people who say that people speaking in Québecois come across as having a poor education and low intellect. Sad, but true. And it's not uncommon to see people who went to private colleges speak with a faux Parisian accent (for instance, without any diphtongs - 'tsip' vs 'tip'), trying to show off as having a better education.
On the business front, people will use Québecois among themselves in a company, but if they're meeting with important people, they will be careful of how they speak, and try to convey a more 'international' (translation: understandable by the Parisians) French.
So: yeah, I know it's a dialect. Whether it should be accepted as such, or fought against, is the question. I personally think it's totally ridiculous to link use of slang to education, and that people who combat Québecois so vehemently can only be called 'anal retentive'.
I was under the impression that the distinctions had to be _easily_ measured, ie the blank stares Enoch said they get from Parisian French speakers. More than that, I believed it had to evolve naturally - creoles being an 'unnatural' form of evolution.
The distinction between Québec French and France French, I think, is identical to the distinction between American English and British English. In both cases, you have a nearly identical syntax with a lot of regional slang and expressions. In many cases, you also have different definitions for words. Both in American English and Québec French, the language has evolved by being separated geographically, but still kept in contact, with the country of origin.
A Parisian will give a blank stare to a Québecois if the Québecois speaks fast and uses a lot of slang, the same way a Brit would probably double-take if he heard a Texan spitting out words filled with colloquial expressions.
Hope this clears it up... I certainly don't think Québec French is a Creole. For starters, Québec French evolved from the whole France French, just in parallel. I hadn't thought about the Québecois/American English parallel before, but I think it fits the distinction perfectly.
Of course, the Brits are well-aware of American expressions and accents, whereas the French don't know Québec that well. The other distinction is that American English is considered proper, whereas Québec French is considered vulgar, and France French is taught in schools and used in movies. It's rather pathetic, really; I wish Québec would obsess a little less on its language.
I realise the humour of Yahoo! Québec is gonna be hard to grasp even for other French speakers, because it's very Québec-oriented. But when I loaded the page, I couldn't help but laugh, and the humour was immediately apparent to me.
Here's the thing: spoken Québecois is a variation of France French. Technically, we write the same French (with a few "Canadianisms" thrown in) but our spoken French is radically different, filled with expressions and pronounciation variants that even the French have a lot of problem to understand. When we speak in Québecois before a French, it's not unusual to get a blank stare, followed by 'Pardon?'
There's a whole debate about Québecois slang. Is it a true language? Or is it a deformation brought about by lack of rigor and education? The snobs and well-bred try to mimic Parisian French, but otherwise, you'll hear Québecois everywhere you go. And so, even though everyone speaks it, Québecois is considered 'vulgar' or common by many people. (Some Québecois artists claim otherwise and sing in Québecois, but that's another story.)
So, most of Québec's search engines are coupled with French ones, because we have the same written language. But Yahoo! Québec's humour rests in this: it is written in an imitation of spoken Québecois, and belittles the small-town, close-minded Québecois mentality.
That's why, for instance, under the listing "Régions", you see the following headers: "Us", "Africans", "The South". Most small-minded Québecois without education would only recognise these three distinctions.
Under the news box, we see items such as, "René Simard enceint" ('René Simard [Québec artist, male] pregnant'; cheap joke.) "Gouverne Ment" means 'Government' but is a play on words of 'Govern' and 'lie'. And so on.
So, it's definitely a parody. It's funny, too. Just in case it wasn't obvious, tabarnak!
Well, the way he made it sound, they top the transfer rate at 5Kbps *anyway*... That means it would be less expensive to switch to analog dialup and buy a second phone line, with the same results.
Why the heck are you sticking with @Home, then? I would have lost my patience waaay before 13 months, and switched to someone else. It's not even like they're really cheap.
...for winning "Game of the Year" awards two years in a row. Half-Life stole all the awards even though it came out in late 1998, because everyone thought it was such a fantastic game, it should win it even though it was out just two months.
And now sites like Ars Technica are saying that Half-Life deserves to be placed in the 1999 games because it was too late in 1998... That's definitely a first!
Heck, what can I say. Half-Lifedoes deserve to win two years in a row.
Actually, I don't mean to bash Kevin Smith, but his Dogma was much inferior to Good Omens, and I think it would have done him good to read Good Omens beforehand.
I get the impression someone decided to give Good Omens the go because they saw Dogma doing well, and knew Good Omens was far superior. Dogma relied a lot on puerile jokes (the eternal 'when in doubt, fart' approach to humour), and had a very sketchy idea of mythical references and character development. On the other hand, Good Omens feels like a mature, very British and very funny approach to something Dogma only suspects exists. If this project is put in the hands of Terry Gilliam, hell... Let him at it! This is gonna be a beauty.
On a side-note: there is a very good reason why Good Omens doesn't feel much like Sandman at all. It's very much Terry Pratchett's book. Terry said he wrote a bit more than two thirds of the book, and edited the master document. They wrote bits of it, and Terry edited them for style and content. As such, if you ever read a Discworld novel, you'll notice how much of Good Omens is recogniseable as Pratchett, up to and including DEATH, WHO SPEAKS LIKE THIS.
If you never read a Discworld novel, then in the name of comedy, run and buy one. I heartily recommend Guards! Guards! or Witches Abroad as a primer. I actually felt Good Omens was inferior to most Discworld novels. There is something more consistent and insidious about the Discworld humour that's kinda messed up (but still hilarious) in Good Omens.
Well, what about using this forum to post followups to the original article? I was one of the people who picked up on the Hacker's Diet following its posting on/. last year.
The great thing about it is that it speaks directly to hackers. It doesn't tell you to lose weight in order to be more attractive and get laid (although there's that advantage *grin* ). It tells you to successfully diet because it's a hacking problem and you should treat it as such.
That small bit really got me. It's actually the reason I've started reading this thing and went through with it. I've lost 50 pounds as a result.
Yeah yeah, I know. I was being lazy. Mind you, if Americans can constantly overlook the accents on French words, I don't see why I can overlook an umlaut on a word that's, for all intents and purposes, American by now.:)
Not that I'm for hero worship, and I agree that his illness has something to do with his celebrity. Let's face it: it's romantic to think of Hawking as a genius trapped in an imperfect body. It's the uber-geek analogy. A lot of people identify with it, and scientists first.
Now, I would hesitate to call Hawking a fraud because he's popular. I believe he's popular for a reason. During graduate studies in particle physics, I had the pleasure to go through nasty and complex peer-reviewed journals like Quantum Gravity and the eternal Physics Letter. I stumbled upon a few of Stephen Hawking's papers.
They're the real thing. The guys does have a knack for theoretical thinking, and many of his ideas are both controversial, somewhat useless, and fascinating. He's done a lot of theoretical work on black holes, as well, and in this field, he is considered a pioneer.
(One final exam question in a General Relativity class went like this: Given Hawking's Law, calculate the resulting maximal mass and angular momentum of two black holes of equal mass but opposite angular momentum. Fun!)
The journalists and the public are to blame, here. They're the ones who go see Hawking like he's got some sort of dedicated phone line with God. But that's what's the public perception of science inevitably is. You wouldn't believe the questions I get asked that have nothing to do with my field of expertise.
A Brief History of Time's goal was to entertain and make the public's mind bend around physics problems. As such, it was magnificently successful. Of course it ain't established astrophysical theory, and of course it contains controversial material. Anything that's ever been considered interesting in Science has been controversial. Heck, Newton's Theory of Gravitation is still considered controversial by some people.
I think this interview illustrates the perception of the media, and the usual response Hawking gives. His whole 'We haven't received visitors from the future' gig is old, but it makes people laugh and dream. He plays the celebrity gig, and usually he doesn't have anything much to say to people looking up to him like some sort of Homeric hero. But to discredit him as a scientist, and say he's anything but a brilliant one, is not understanding the man fully.
Yes, there are many other scientists alive who probably deserve Hawking's exposure, only for their ideas and their minds. But celebrity isn't just about minds. When Hawking and I speak of physics, the layman probably has no idea who says the most profound things, because it's all a blur to them. But Hawking is in a wheelchair and is an eccentric. And that, usually, means celebrity more than mastery of mathematics.
That really is the problem with media nowadays. If a news item, however ludicrous, shows up in two different sources, it's taken as fact.
Myself, my Hoax Radar went off the scale when I read the bit about the 'Red Flag Linux' distribution. That was funny.:)
This is like saying, 'Of course, we always suspected Linux was communist, what's with the RED hat?' Be thankful Linux wasn't born under MacCarthysm, we'd all be branded communists now!
You're saying I have to pay for the $200 ergonomic keyboard and $1800 ergonomic chair with comfy armrests and foot massager all by myself now? Awww!
Well, I'll give up on the ergonomic mouse and ergonomic on/off switch...
More seriously:
As someone who does a lot of freelance writing, I think it's a bit sad that regulations are still trailing behind on the subject of ergonomics for the telecommuter and/or freelancer. I don't think it should necessarely be up to the companies to pay for all the ergonomic stuff people may or may not need, but I think there's a need for Government funding in helping telecommuters and freelancers get support in acquiring a safe work environment at home.
Maybe it's too much to ask for damages with carpal syndrome, severe caffeine addiction, monitor radiation tan and severe loss of hair, but hey. I understand this legislation was shot down, but I hope a more sensible one pops up.
I figured they didn't open all of it; but I was speculating that even if they did open source all the OS, it would still be more marketing hype, and not true to the spirit of Open Source.
Call me cynical, but all this smacks of trendiness. Open Source, in 1999 (oh, sorry, 2000) is becoming a trendy, cool thing to do.
However, I highly doubt there's much good to come of this. Suppose Apple OS's the entire OS. What good will that do? They'll still control the releases, and no one will want to contribute to the code since people are getting paid hefty sums of money to develop it anyway.
What I think is, and I welcome anyone to correct me, this is just a publicity move and not much more. I don't think anything good will come out of Open Sourcing any part of the OS, other than allow individual hackers to toy around with it and understand it better. But without the GPL, and the meaning of Open Source being applied, this is just a clever marketing ploy.
Then i guess I'm not understanding your point -- how do you differentiate between techies who have to work to put food on the table (but somehow remain uncorrupted by the money of corporations) and lawyers (who are corrupted)?
The distinction I make is this -- it's not necessarily the lawyers that are corrupted; I don't believe a single class of individuals linked by profession could all be corrupted all at once. I believe it is the judiciary system that is easily swayed by big money and corporate cash.
That's not to say the people upholding the system are corrupt; but if you have more money, you can get the better lawyer. That puts an advantage on your side that has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong. The lawyers defending such corporations are just doing their job, and if they're better, they're getting more money. But the system, as a whole, still favours big money.
My choice of subject was meant to be farcical, really, and I included a disclaimer to that effect, so don't take it too seriously. I don't say the lawyers themselves should be hanged, but that the whole system itself lends itself to the defense of corporate and governmental interests over common sense.
As for your parallel with techies: well, that's exactly what I mean. Big companies do get the better techies. However, there's no spirit of fairness to be considered in capitalism beyond healthy business practices, so it's fair that big money attracts talent. That this talent determines the course of Justice is a little bit more distressing. But I don't blame a lawyer going for the big money any more that I blame myself for picking a job above another for the paycheck.
Visit any law school and you'll find a lot more people who want to fight before the supreme court for truth and justice than you might suspect.
Sure. I never said otherwise. But that usually drains away before they practice.
Sorry. I have a few lawyer friends, and it is common practice in the business to develop a healthy cynicism towards truth and justice. So, although individual lawyers may be idealists and paragons of virtue, Law as a whole is a servant of corporate interests, whether you like it or not.
It's actually in the very definition of Law: every person, whatever the crime they are accused of, has a right to a lawyer. That includes Klaus Barbie, Carlos, and other mass murderers. They have a right to be defended fairly, so a lawyer actually defending a known mass murderer is still doing an ethical job.
However, given that the best money buys the best lawyer, it's no wonder money is, ultimately, the oil that makes the wheels of Justice turn. And who has all the money, I ask you?
(Well, perhaps not literally... I was just trying to illustrate the obvious slant I have on the subject. So read what follows with it in mind.)
I think lawyers understand perfectly, on a layman level, the technologies and their potential implications. I think they deserve credit for that.
On the other hand, it's true that geeks and techies have opinions on the technology they use that differs from the common man or the desires and needs of a large corporation. The typical geek has (and I apologise for the generalisation) a tendency to libertarianism, and a strong belief in the sacrosanct quality of freedom of speech and anonymity, at the cost of a few criminals getting away with it.
Now, this is certainly not the Government or the multinationals' point of view. To them, a more middle-right wing approach is preferable, where proper methods of control are put in place in order to fight crime, including crimes against the State. Multinationals also thrive on a society with a Right-wing approach, as they wish for less reglementation as possible in the Public sector.
Where am I going with this? Why, it's quite simple. It's this approach, and not the technology itself, which is the fundamental difference between lawyers and geeks. Lawyers are dominated and work for a world of Governments and large business interests. They have to legislate for a practical business world and not for technological utopias and moral principles in application.
I think we both understand the technology perfectly. What we want to do with it, on the other hand, is the huge difference.
Dunno about that... You may well have reached higher Karma by now. Not that it matters anymore... I am gifted with the prestige and curse of having had the highest Karma when Karma became private.:)
Hey, I wouldn't mind if they gave out shares according to Karma! I could read Slashdot on a beach somewhere, using a Linux-powered laptop, and watch the Karma whoring reach insane new heights....
I see the whole theory is based on 'natural selection'; too bad... I think these memes are created by God! God created urban legends as they are, and spread them around without altering their forms; for God's creation is perfect, and thus would not be altered!
I mean, did you ever find urban legend fossils? Besides, we all know the Internet was created by God 2 years ago, so these urban legends and chain letters claimed to date back before 2 years ago are lies! They have been put in your mailbox to test your faith!
Next thing we know, people will be teaching this 'religion' of memes in public schools and corrupting the nation!
Anonymizer is crap. They ask you to pay a good sum of money to use their service, AND they ask for your email address and other coordinates. They're riding the anonymity bandwagon and understand it's hot, but have no clue what the hell it is.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents about Freedom. It's made by Zero-Knowledge Technologies, the same guys who proved a while ago that you could enable the PIII ID through the Internet even if it was turned off in the BIOS. They're mondo cool, and they're from my home city, too! Once I get a few years as a Security Analyst under my belt, my resume is going straight to them.
What Freedom basically does is provide you with different IDs to navigate the Internet. It also keeps your cookies in different profiles, and basically allows you to forge a complete "identity", or multiple ones, to surf. It's anonymity without the need for a proxy or any such crap.
It's too bad it's a proprietary project, though... I would figure that these guys would dig Open Source. I'd sure love to take a peek at their code and algorithms.
Pretty sure it's aimed at politicians. After all, we're all sold to the concept of electronic anonymity, and if we were the target audience, it'd be preaching to the converted.
I see it as a sort of HOWTO to anonymity advocacy. We all know the various merits of privacy, but often, we're unable to word it for a political or business crowd. Luckily, there's people like Wallace out there who can help.
Thanks for your concern, AC. I think Enoch Root. has gotten tired of his game as he saw it wasn't working, and now he just trolls around. Especially since his karma has now been driven into the ground, I suspect people will notice it's not me when they see a post about nakedness and petrification with a starting score of 0.
And so far, no one has fallen for the trap by spamming my mailbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, didn't expect the nitpicks. One day, I will learn. :)
What I should have meant is, the dilemma in Québec is whether the usage of Québecois is legitimate and should be allowed and perhaps enforced by public schools, or banned and fought. There's a lot of people who say that people speaking in Québecois come across as having a poor education and low intellect. Sad, but true. And it's not uncommon to see people who went to private colleges speak with a faux Parisian accent (for instance, without any diphtongs - 'tsip' vs 'tip'), trying to show off as having a better education.
On the business front, people will use Québecois among themselves in a company, but if they're meeting with important people, they will be careful of how they speak, and try to convey a more 'international' (translation: understandable by the Parisians) French.
So: yeah, I know it's a dialect. Whether it should be accepted as such, or fought against, is the question. I personally think it's totally ridiculous to link use of slang to education, and that people who combat Québecois so vehemently can only be called 'anal retentive'.
The distinction between Québec French and France French, I think, is identical to the distinction between American English and British English. In both cases, you have a nearly identical syntax with a lot of regional slang and expressions. In many cases, you also have different definitions for words. Both in American English and Québec French, the language has evolved by being separated geographically, but still kept in contact, with the country of origin.
A Parisian will give a blank stare to a Québecois if the Québecois speaks fast and uses a lot of slang, the same way a Brit would probably double-take if he heard a Texan spitting out words filled with colloquial expressions.
Hope this clears it up... I certainly don't think Québec French is a Creole. For starters, Québec French evolved from the whole France French, just in parallel. I hadn't thought about the Québecois/American English parallel before, but I think it fits the distinction perfectly.
Of course, the Brits are well-aware of American expressions and accents, whereas the French don't know Québec that well. The other distinction is that American English is considered proper, whereas Québec French is considered vulgar, and France French is taught in schools and used in movies. It's rather pathetic, really; I wish Québec would obsess a little less on its language.
Here's the thing: spoken Québecois is a variation of France French. Technically, we write the same French (with a few "Canadianisms" thrown in) but our spoken French is radically different, filled with expressions and pronounciation variants that even the French have a lot of problem to understand. When we speak in Québecois before a French, it's not unusual to get a blank stare, followed by 'Pardon?'
There's a whole debate about Québecois slang. Is it a true language? Or is it a deformation brought about by lack of rigor and education? The snobs and well-bred try to mimic Parisian French, but otherwise, you'll hear Québecois everywhere you go. And so, even though everyone speaks it, Québecois is considered 'vulgar' or common by many people. (Some Québecois artists claim otherwise and sing in Québecois, but that's another story.)
So, most of Québec's search engines are coupled with French ones, because we have the same written language. But Yahoo! Québec's humour rests in this: it is written in an imitation of spoken Québecois, and belittles the small-town, close-minded Québecois mentality.
That's why, for instance, under the listing "Régions", you see the following headers: "Us", "Africans", "The South". Most small-minded Québecois without education would only recognise these three distinctions.
Under the news box, we see items such as, "René Simard enceint" ('René Simard [Québec artist, male] pregnant'; cheap joke.) "Gouverne Ment" means 'Government' but is a play on words of 'Govern' and 'lie'. And so on.
So, it's definitely a parody. It's funny, too. Just in case it wasn't obvious, tabarnak!
Well, the way he made it sound, they top the transfer rate at 5Kbps *anyway*... That means it would be less expensive to switch to analog dialup and buy a second phone line, with the same results.
Why the heck are you sticking with @Home, then? I would have lost my patience waaay before 13 months, and switched to someone else. It's not even like they're really cheap.
And now sites like Ars Technica are saying that Half-Life deserves to be placed in the 1999 games because it was too late in 1998... That's definitely a first!
Heck, what can I say. Half-Life does deserve to win two years in a row.
I get the impression someone decided to give Good Omens the go because they saw Dogma doing well, and knew Good Omens was far superior. Dogma relied a lot on puerile jokes (the eternal 'when in doubt, fart' approach to humour), and had a very sketchy idea of mythical references and character development. On the other hand, Good Omens feels like a mature, very British and very funny approach to something Dogma only suspects exists. If this project is put in the hands of Terry Gilliam, hell... Let him at it! This is gonna be a beauty.
On a side-note: there is a very good reason why Good Omens doesn't feel much like Sandman at all. It's very much Terry Pratchett's book. Terry said he wrote a bit more than two thirds of the book, and edited the master document. They wrote bits of it, and Terry edited them for style and content. As such, if you ever read a Discworld novel, you'll notice how much of Good Omens is recogniseable as Pratchett, up to and including DEATH, WHO SPEAKS LIKE THIS.
If you never read a Discworld novel, then in the name of comedy, run and buy one. I heartily recommend Guards! Guards! or Witches Abroad as a primer. I actually felt Good Omens was inferior to most Discworld novels. There is something more consistent and insidious about the Discworld humour that's kinda messed up (but still hilarious) in Good Omens.
The great thing about it is that it speaks directly to hackers. It doesn't tell you to lose weight in order to be more attractive and get laid (although there's that advantage *grin* ). It tells you to successfully diet because it's a hacking problem and you should treat it as such.
That small bit really got me. It's actually the reason I've started reading this thing and went through with it. I've lost 50 pounds as a result.
Any other 'testimonials' out there? :)
(Darn, this thing makes me wish I had a Palm!)
Wow, I'm impressed! You got almost all of them right! The only mistake is première, not prémiere. But I definitely appreciate it. :)
Yeah yeah, I know. I was being lazy. Mind you, if Americans can constantly overlook the accents on French words, I don't see why I can overlook an umlaut on a word that's, for all intents and purposes, American by now. :)
Now, I would hesitate to call Hawking a fraud because he's popular. I believe he's popular for a reason. During graduate studies in particle physics, I had the pleasure to go through nasty and complex peer-reviewed journals like Quantum Gravity and the eternal Physics Letter. I stumbled upon a few of Stephen Hawking's papers.
They're the real thing. The guys does have a knack for theoretical thinking, and many of his ideas are both controversial, somewhat useless, and fascinating. He's done a lot of theoretical work on black holes, as well, and in this field, he is considered a pioneer.
(One final exam question in a General Relativity class went like this: Given Hawking's Law, calculate the resulting maximal mass and angular momentum of two black holes of equal mass but opposite angular momentum. Fun!)
The journalists and the public are to blame, here. They're the ones who go see Hawking like he's got some sort of dedicated phone line with God. But that's what's the public perception of science inevitably is. You wouldn't believe the questions I get asked that have nothing to do with my field of expertise.
A Brief History of Time's goal was to entertain and make the public's mind bend around physics problems. As such, it was magnificently successful. Of course it ain't established astrophysical theory, and of course it contains controversial material. Anything that's ever been considered interesting in Science has been controversial. Heck, Newton's Theory of Gravitation is still considered controversial by some people.
I think this interview illustrates the perception of the media, and the usual response Hawking gives. His whole 'We haven't received visitors from the future' gig is old, but it makes people laugh and dream. He plays the celebrity gig, and usually he doesn't have anything much to say to people looking up to him like some sort of Homeric hero. But to discredit him as a scientist, and say he's anything but a brilliant one, is not understanding the man fully.
Yes, there are many other scientists alive who probably deserve Hawking's exposure, only for their ideas and their minds. But celebrity isn't just about minds. When Hawking and I speak of physics, the layman probably has no idea who says the most profound things, because it's all a blur to them. But Hawking is in a wheelchair and is an eccentric. And that, usually, means celebrity more than mastery of mathematics.
Myself, my Hoax Radar went off the scale when I read the bit about the 'Red Flag Linux' distribution. That was funny. :)
This is like saying, 'Of course, we always suspected Linux was communist, what's with the RED hat?' Be thankful Linux wasn't born under MacCarthysm, we'd all be branded communists now!
Well, I'll give up on the ergonomic mouse and ergonomic on/off switch...
More seriously:
As someone who does a lot of freelance writing, I think it's a bit sad that regulations are still trailing behind on the subject of ergonomics for the telecommuter and/or freelancer. I don't think it should necessarely be up to the companies to pay for all the ergonomic stuff people may or may not need, but I think there's a need for Government funding in helping telecommuters and freelancers get support in acquiring a safe work environment at home.
Maybe it's too much to ask for damages with carpal syndrome, severe caffeine addiction, monitor radiation tan and severe loss of hair, but hey. I understand this legislation was shot down, but I hope a more sensible one pops up.
I figured they didn't open all of it; but I was speculating that even if they did open source all the OS, it would still be more marketing hype, and not true to the spirit of Open Source.
However, I highly doubt there's much good to come of this. Suppose Apple OS's the entire OS. What good will that do? They'll still control the releases, and no one will want to contribute to the code since people are getting paid hefty sums of money to develop it anyway.
What I think is, and I welcome anyone to correct me, this is just a publicity move and not much more. I don't think anything good will come out of Open Sourcing any part of the OS, other than allow individual hackers to toy around with it and understand it better. But without the GPL, and the meaning of Open Source being applied, this is just a clever marketing ploy.
Feel free to contradict me, of course.
The distinction I make is this -- it's not necessarily the lawyers that are corrupted; I don't believe a single class of individuals linked by profession could all be corrupted all at once. I believe it is the judiciary system that is easily swayed by big money and corporate cash.
That's not to say the people upholding the system are corrupt; but if you have more money, you can get the better lawyer. That puts an advantage on your side that has nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong. The lawyers defending such corporations are just doing their job, and if they're better, they're getting more money. But the system, as a whole, still favours big money.
My choice of subject was meant to be farcical, really, and I included a disclaimer to that effect, so don't take it too seriously. I don't say the lawyers themselves should be hanged, but that the whole system itself lends itself to the defense of corporate and governmental interests over common sense.
As for your parallel with techies: well, that's exactly what I mean. Big companies do get the better techies. However, there's no spirit of fairness to be considered in capitalism beyond healthy business practices, so it's fair that big money attracts talent. That this talent determines the course of Justice is a little bit more distressing. But I don't blame a lawyer going for the big money any more that I blame myself for picking a job above another for the paycheck.
Hope this clears it up.
Sure. I never said otherwise. But that usually drains away before they practice.
Sorry. I have a few lawyer friends, and it is common practice in the business to develop a healthy cynicism towards truth and justice. So, although individual lawyers may be idealists and paragons of virtue, Law as a whole is a servant of corporate interests, whether you like it or not.
It's actually in the very definition of Law: every person, whatever the crime they are accused of, has a right to a lawyer. That includes Klaus Barbie, Carlos, and other mass murderers. They have a right to be defended fairly, so a lawyer actually defending a known mass murderer is still doing an ethical job.
However, given that the best money buys the best lawyer, it's no wonder money is, ultimately, the oil that makes the wheels of Justice turn. And who has all the money, I ask you?
I think lawyers understand perfectly, on a layman level, the technologies and their potential implications. I think they deserve credit for that.
On the other hand, it's true that geeks and techies have opinions on the technology they use that differs from the common man or the desires and needs of a large corporation. The typical geek has (and I apologise for the generalisation) a tendency to libertarianism, and a strong belief in the sacrosanct quality of freedom of speech and anonymity, at the cost of a few criminals getting away with it.
Now, this is certainly not the Government or the multinationals' point of view. To them, a more middle-right wing approach is preferable, where proper methods of control are put in place in order to fight crime, including crimes against the State. Multinationals also thrive on a society with a Right-wing approach, as they wish for less reglementation as possible in the Public sector.
Where am I going with this? Why, it's quite simple. It's this approach, and not the technology itself, which is the fundamental difference between lawyers and geeks. Lawyers are dominated and work for a world of Governments and large business interests. They have to legislate for a practical business world and not for technological utopias and moral principles in application.
I think we both understand the technology perfectly. What we want to do with it, on the other hand, is the huge difference.
Hey, I wouldn't mind if they gave out shares according to Karma! I could read Slashdot on a beach somewhere, using a Linux-powered laptop, and watch the Karma whoring reach insane new heights....
I mean, did you ever find urban legend fossils? Besides, we all know the Internet was created by God 2 years ago, so these urban legends and chain letters claimed to date back before 2 years ago are lies! They have been put in your mailbox to test your faith!
Next thing we know, people will be teaching this 'religion' of memes in public schools and corrupting the nation!
(Whew! Alright, enough sarcasm. :) Great ideas!)
Anonymizer is crap. They ask you to pay a good sum of money to use their service, AND they ask for your email address and other coordinates. They're riding the anonymity bandwagon and understand it's hot, but have no clue what the hell it is.
What Freedom basically does is provide you with different IDs to navigate the Internet. It also keeps your cookies in different profiles, and basically allows you to forge a complete "identity", or multiple ones, to surf. It's anonymity without the need for a proxy or any such crap.
It's too bad it's a proprietary project, though... I would figure that these guys would dig Open Source. I'd sure love to take a peek at their code and algorithms.
Cause right now, the price tag is a bit stiff.
(Hey Sig. :) )
I see it as a sort of HOWTO to anonymity advocacy. We all know the various merits of privacy, but often, we're unable to word it for a political or business crowd. Luckily, there's people like Wallace out there who can help.
I'm wondering, how much does it cost? I haven't seen anything resembling a price tag anywhere on the site.
And so far, no one has fallen for the trap by spamming my mailbox.