"Sure, it's bad for the end user information wants to be free"....
I always thought that the expression "information wants to be free" simply pointed out the difficultly in locking down information as, by nature, it is easily reproducible. Here, however, you use it as "information should be free."
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the things that I see done to this phrase really is alarming.
My point was you should be more clear than "first impression assumptions". There has to be a better way to say this. If "a priori" assumptions is not what you mean, then you should use another term. Out of curiosity, what *do* you mean, besides an assumption formed before experience? If you say the difference is that one has a "first experience", whilst the other has none... I would counter that since we aren't holding a first impression as valid to begin with, a first experience doesn't really count as an experience at all. By this reasoning, the term fits perfectly. Admittedly, there is a minor change of focus, but your phrase was just sloppy. Nevertheless, it wasn't as sloppy as your reasoning. Now, to counter your response, it's swell of you to claim that the two are unrelated, but I charge you to *demonstrate* it. I believe you'll find any attempt to do so will fall flat on its face.
As for "my other comment"...you claiming that devices will just stop working if some presupposed natural law is invalidated is plain ludicrous. This *is* what you said. If you doubt me, you may wish to look over your text.
but other courses in anthropology, religion, and world history sort of banished those ideas from my head.
Ha!! Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Somoa promulgated just this sort of idyllic glorification of the past/unWestern civilazation that your so lambast! This books has only been the most influencial book in Anthropology since its inception. I agree that it's total bullshit, but you can drop you fucking pretenses you ass.
a good amount of our basic physics assumes that the Second Law holds. If it breaks, then any energy-producing devices that rely on it holding will not function either.
Get a clue.
the first impression assumptions.
Better yet, get a decent vocabulary first. Then get a clue. Try using "a priori".
One where you *DANCE*.
If you didn't know, dancing (especially at a rave-style club) can be very physically exhausting. Hence sweat->dehydration->need a water break.
You know, the original pledge did not have the words "under god". They were added in 1954 as part of McCarthyism... to show how we weren't communists because communists were atheists.
Even the lo-res images aren't public domain and you have to pay to access the hi-res stuff.
Are they not? Some of the older ones might be. Just because companies who have been scanning in photos/stills that have passed into the public domain have been calling their digital forms copyrightable, it doesn't mean that it will hold up.
Good point. However, I have a point for you to chew on as well.
belief in *A* truth and belief in truth itself are entirely different.
but more than that, it is the adoption of "a truth" as a political platform which really get our wars started.
What I'm advocating is submitting to truth at all costs. One who believes in truth (even at the cost of oneself), will be open minded. It's when one defends oneself by trying to wield truth that we see intolerance.
This post just made me feel warm and fuzzy all over. It's nice to see someone *abosultely convinced* of the importance of truth. Really, it's the only way to be, for anything else is compromising. And what is the truth once compromisized? Posturing.
Just to let you know, I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post after that.
Whose sticking whose head in the sand?
Stick your head in the ground if you like, it sucks, but Corporations ARE afforded all rights of personhood, and have since the late 1800s.
Well, yes. They are *afforded* many rights of personhood.
Anyways... if you would have read the rest of my post you would have seen that I realize that this issue is *debated*. Furthermore, please notice the difference between *afforded* and *entititled to*. Please, try. The have been given the rights, though the have no proper claim to them.
Furthermore, In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, 1886 (which *affords* rights of personhood--the quesiton of "entitlement" by this case here is quite shaky), it only applied the first claus of the 14th admendment. One might think this would sneak in the rest of the admentments, but do you remember when nike was denied the first admendment?
I'll be god damned. This isn't so straightforward after all.
Let me finish by looking at the original context:
"Unfortunately, THEY DO. It's called Free Speech. Bill of Rights, at the top.
I hate spammers too, I really do, but which is worse - a few more junk mails, or yet another restriction set up on our supposedly unrestricted speech?"
Oh. Wait. This has nothing to do with what corporations are allowed--only what they deserve. God damn. Why did you switch context in your reply then?
To be fair, it seems you just thought you'd try and make me look stupid. Why don't you back off and pay attention to what I'm saying next time. I understand the need to speak clearly but your snide ass comments don't get anywhere.
Corporate entities do not constitue persons, and therefore are not entitled to any "rights" per se. Do a quick google on "corporate personhood" for more info on the issue.
Likewise, commercial speech is not consider speech proper, and is also not covered. For example, I may be legally be able to lie to you (though not in court or any legally binding contract), but I cannot misrepresent a product in an advertisement. Of course, companies like to push the "misrepresentation" vs "misinterpretation" issue by claiming that the viewee themself had assumed certain messages that were not in the advertisement, while the company actively tries to get the public to assume whatever outrageous ideas they can....but I digress.
One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.
This smacks as an attempt to balance the nature-nurture debate with a 50/50 compromise (50% from genes, 50% from environment). I don't trust it in the slightest.
Furthermore, since we regard influence as a cumulative effect, we must also recognize that sources of influence are interrelated. It is a complex web that defines how one percieves reality and one's own position to that reality.
I also have problems with this, as it does not take into account education or physical conditions (non-related to genes, such as a gunshot wound to the head that causes severe brain damage--or even drugs!!).
I think it's clear that the rigid and somewhat intolerant mentality of adult-youth relations in the States is a large part of the problem. Occassionally. But, how about the rigid and intolerant mentality of youth-youth relations?
Not that I qoute this a primary source, but perhaps as influencial as adult-youth relations.
People are trying to find out why there were no columbines back in the 50's..
Well, Lou Reed of the Velvet Underground underwent electroshock therapy in 1959 for exhibiting violent and homosexual behavior. Not that this was an appropriate solution for the violent behavior (I won't even touch the homosexual bit), but the reaction was quite different. I can guarantee if you give a violent kid a lobotomy or electroshock or otherwise radical personality changing treatments, that they will likely become non-violent (though occassionally the reverse is true). Violent and otherwise non-social behaviors are a side effect of holding an indivuals personality in high esteem, and regarding it as inheirent to their identity.
Yeah, becasue to keep a sling taut you need a rock that weighs as much as you. Maybe you just need enough centripetal force to counteract any weather (or other extraneous forces) since the position of the center of gravity would allow it to stay in a geosynchronous orbit disregarding forces outside of the system.
In a sense, I hope they do break the internet through an injunction with this patent. Why? Do you think we'd stand for it for a minute? Do you think business will stand for it? Break the internet through patents--and you break the patent system.
person == singular, people == plural Actually, people ==collective, person = singular, persons == plural, discrete.
For example: "Persons who want to troll should post on slashdot." Using "People who want to troll..." indicates that a group of people are wanting to troll (as a group). The word 'people' has, however, become to be used for the plural of 'person' in the vernacular.
See http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0226.html for a discussion. From the site: "But people has always been used in such contexts, and almost no one bothers with the distinction any more. "
Which would prove us both wrong. I still prefer to distinguish 'persons' from 'people' to remain absolutely clear in my meaning.
That shoud be, lauch.yahoo.com . As far as alternatives to the RIAA goes, they come up short. There is a good selection of music, and one can even find some very good music, but a lot of it is still owned by the RIAA. Personally, I find that launch is a good way to find out about new bands that I then downlad through KaZaA lite. I haven't found very many decent radio stations out there. GrunnenRock.nl was rather decent, though they aren't making any new broadcasts--not sure what happened to them.
As far as my illegal pirating of music goes: Yeah, I know it's illegal. And I don't care. There are a few band that I wish could receive compensation for what they do, though they would likely not get much money from their CD sales anyways (mostly live performances). I will not, however, ever pay any RIAA members again. I won't buy my culture (or have it dictated to be by a fucking organisation).
This is *all about* distribution, and not allowing the RIAA to control what we hear (which is why it is sad to see so many Britney/Kid Rock/Eminem songs out there--but it doesn't matter that much, because it'll still ruin their distribution model). I want to see the RIAA bite it, and bite it hard. I do *not* want corporations to *ever* be able to make enough money on music to want to actively pursue it's advertisement/commodification.
The argument usually fed to us is that then musicians will not be able to make enough money to make music. Well, for the most part, I want them to stop making music, because they suck. The few who don't, are so passionate about it, they'll make it anyways. Besides, they can make some cash through alternative revenue streams (merchandising, live performances, second jobs, NEA grants, patrons).
So, why don't we kill the music industry and reclaim our culture.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought that the expression "information wants to be free" simply pointed out the difficultly in locking down information as, by nature, it is easily reproducible. Here, however, you use it as "information should be free."
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the things that I see done to this phrase really is alarming.
As for "my other comment"...you claiming that devices will just stop working if some presupposed natural law is invalidated is plain ludicrous. This *is* what you said. If you doubt me, you may wish to look over your text.
Ha!! Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Somoa promulgated just this sort of idyllic glorification of the past/unWestern civilazation that your so lambast! This books has only been the most influencial book in Anthropology since its inception. I agree that it's total bullshit, but you can drop you fucking pretenses you ass.
Get a clue.
the first impression assumptions.
Better yet, get a decent vocabulary first. Then get a clue. Try using "a priori".
One where you *DANCE*. If you didn't know, dancing (especially at a rave-style club) can be very physically exhausting. Hence sweat->dehydration->need a water break.
You know, the original pledge did not have the words "under god". They were added in 1954 as part of McCarthyism... to show how we weren't communists because communists were atheists.
Are they not? Some of the older ones might be. Just because companies who have been scanning in photos/stills that have passed into the public domain have been calling their digital forms copyrightable, it doesn't mean that it will hold up.
It's a monty pyton flying circus quote.
I see you're still here.
belief in *A* truth and belief in truth itself are entirely different.
but more than that, it is the adoption of "a truth" as a political platform which really get our wars started.
What I'm advocating is submitting to truth at all costs. One who believes in truth (even at the cost of oneself), will be open minded. It's when one defends oneself by trying to wield truth that we see intolerance.
By this reasoning, Truth is a policy.
This post just made me feel warm and fuzzy all over. It's nice to see someone *abosultely convinced* of the importance of truth. Really, it's the only way to be, for anything else is compromising. And what is the truth once compromisized? Posturing.
Whose sticking whose head in the sand?
Stick your head in the ground if you like, it sucks, but Corporations ARE afforded all rights of personhood, and have since the late 1800s.
Well, yes. They are *afforded* many rights of personhood.
Anyways... if you would have read the rest of my post you would have seen that I realize that this issue is *debated*. Furthermore, please notice the difference between *afforded* and *entititled to*. Please, try. The have been given the rights, though the have no proper claim to them.
Furthermore, In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, 1886 (which *affords* rights of personhood--the quesiton of "entitlement" by this case here is quite shaky), it only applied the first claus of the 14th admendment. One might think this would sneak in the rest of the admentments, but do you remember when nike was denied the first admendment?
I'll be god damned. This isn't so straightforward after all.
Let me finish by looking at the original context:
"Unfortunately, THEY DO. It's called Free Speech. Bill of Rights, at the top. I hate spammers too, I really do, but which is worse - a few more junk mails, or yet another restriction set up on our supposedly unrestricted speech?"
Oh. Wait. This has nothing to do with what corporations are allowed--only what they deserve. God damn. Why did you switch context in your reply then?
To be fair, it seems you just thought you'd try and make me look stupid. Why don't you back off and pay attention to what I'm saying next time. I understand the need to speak clearly but your snide ass comments don't get anywhere.
Likewise, commercial speech is not consider speech proper, and is also not covered. For example, I may be legally be able to lie to you (though not in court or any legally binding contract), but I cannot misrepresent a product in an advertisement. Of course, companies like to push the "misrepresentation" vs "misinterpretation" issue by claiming that the viewee themself had assumed certain messages that were not in the advertisement, while the company actively tries to get the public to assume whatever outrageous ideas they can....but I digress.
Certainly, because it is impossible that he's had more than 3 cases.
As well as OS400.
sorry 'bout the bold.
This smacks as an attempt to balance the nature-nurture debate with a 50/50 compromise (50% from genes, 50% from environment). I don't trust it in the slightest.
Furthermore, since we regard influence as a cumulative effect, we must also recognize that sources of influence are interrelated. It is a complex web that defines how one percieves reality and one's own position to that reality.
I also have problems with this, as it does not take into account education or physical conditions (non-related to genes, such as a gunshot wound to the head that causes severe brain damage--or even drugs!!).
I think it's clear that the rigid and somewhat intolerant mentality of adult-youth relations in the States is a large part of the problem. Occassionally. But, how about the rigid and intolerant mentality of youth-youth relations?
Not that I qoute this a primary source, but perhaps as influencial as adult-youth relations.
Well, Lou Reed of the Velvet Underground underwent electroshock therapy in 1959 for exhibiting violent and homosexual behavior. Not that this was an appropriate solution for the violent behavior (I won't even touch the homosexual bit), but the reaction was quite different. I can guarantee if you give a violent kid a lobotomy or electroshock or otherwise radical personality changing treatments, that they will likely become non-violent (though occassionally the reverse is true). Violent and otherwise non-social behaviors are a side effect of holding an indivuals personality in high esteem, and regarding it as inheirent to their identity.
Yeah, becasue to keep a sling taut you need a rock that weighs as much as you. Maybe you just need enough centripetal force to counteract any weather (or other extraneous forces) since the position of the center of gravity would allow it to stay in a geosynchronous orbit disregarding forces outside of the system.
apparently, the patent covers scripting as well. Want to use an "OnMouseOver", seamlessly?
In a sense, I hope they do break the internet through an injunction with this patent. Why? Do you think we'd stand for it for a minute? Do you think business will stand for it? Break the internet through patents--and you break the patent system.
Which goes to show that you'll do nothing but stubbornly simplify the issue, and refuse to accept a larger context.
Actually, people ==collective, person = singular, persons == plural, discrete.
For example: "Persons who want to troll should post on slashdot." Using "People who want to troll..." indicates that a group of people are wanting to troll (as a group). The word 'people' has, however, become to be used for the plural of 'person' in the vernacular.
See http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0226.html for a discussion. From the site: "But people has always been used in such contexts, and almost no one bothers with the distinction any more. "
Which would prove us both wrong. I still prefer to distinguish 'persons' from 'people' to remain absolutely clear in my meaning.
that radio site should be: www.grunnenrocks.nl
As far as my illegal pirating of music goes: Yeah, I know it's illegal. And I don't care. There are a few band that I wish could receive compensation for what they do, though they would likely not get much money from their CD sales anyways (mostly live performances). I will not, however, ever pay any RIAA members again. I won't buy my culture (or have it dictated to be by a fucking organisation).
This is *all about* distribution, and not allowing the RIAA to control what we hear (which is why it is sad to see so many Britney/Kid Rock/Eminem songs out there--but it doesn't matter that much, because it'll still ruin their distribution model). I want to see the RIAA bite it, and bite it hard. I do *not* want corporations to *ever* be able to make enough money on music to want to actively pursue it's advertisement/commodification.
The argument usually fed to us is that then musicians will not be able to make enough money to make music. Well, for the most part, I want them to stop making music, because they suck. The few who don't, are so passionate about it, they'll make it anyways. Besides, they can make some cash through alternative revenue streams (merchandising, live performances, second jobs, NEA grants, patrons).
So, why don't we kill the music industry and reclaim our culture.