...but how does Weird Al do it? The original songs are almost never the subject of his "parody".
Actually, they are (have you even listened to any of his songs?) He picks popular songs, usually current top hits, and parodies the song itself. You could possibly argue that he is parodying the artist, not the song, but that's just splitting hairs.
The subject of the song may change, sure, but that doesn't change the subject of the parody
What's that 3, 4 google stories in one day? Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Google and gmail and all the rest.
Not that Google does not have a prominent place in my daily on-line interaction, but still... they are starting to seem very mainstream big media company-ish lately. I guess that happens to every corporation when the IPO fever hits.
And then, of course, I spend half the day getting nothing from Google but a -27 error.
Yea, Ted Turner makes a convincing argument, and his points are all valid.
Still, he doesn't seem like a very good spokesman for this cause. The history of his business dealings make it clear that he started out small, challenged all the big broadcast giants, gave them a run, but eventually lost the game.
His article often diverges into whining and blaming "the government", or somebody else, because he is no longer a major player in the game. "I had to buy MGM...", like he was forced to do it and that's somehow responsible for why they lost market share even faster than they were before the buyout.
No doubt Ted Turner was a competent business man, but he still wasn't good enough. A couple of his ideas turned out to be really good ones, and worked out really well. Most of his ideas were flops. We're still living with the colorized version of "It's a Wonderful Life", just to remind you of some of his boneheaded moves.
Sorry, Ted, that you lost. I still hope somebody at the FCC or cogress remembers you and gives you an ear, though, because I support your cause (this latest one, at least).
Yep, this is going to be a big deal. I did some NLM (Novell Loadable Module) development for a while, and it was a really crappy environment to work in. One of the reasons people started throwing Windows boxes into the server racks.
And it's not just developers, it's also all the back-office tech guys that have been around since Novell owned the LAN. They know how much more difficult it is supporting a lot of Windows boxes than it is a lot of Netware boxes (plus you don't need as many). So these guys are now thinking maybe they can reduce some of those clunky Windows machines with Novell/Linux/SuSE alternatives.
The big hope is that those.NET developers (often pushed into that environment by gullible managers) can deploy those apps on Mono. Lots of folks see IIS (whether justified or not) as major vulnerability, security wise. From my experience, deploying an IIS installation that is both secure and will support everything the developers need is a major challenge. If Novell can make it happen with SuSE/Apache/Mono, they would have a lot of fans.
Most successful/. troll? Offer gmail invites! Works every time.
I got
hooked myself once, so I guess that gmail invite is a tempting offer. But it's an AC! Do you all you "me too'ers" really sitting there waiting for your invites?
Reminds me of those old newsgroup postings in the early days(!?!?) of the Internet, "Hey, if you want free pr0n, just respond with your email address" followed by 150 "Me too" posts (check out the
netabuse faq for the youngsters).
This is the kind of well-reasoned, thoughtful and clearly written comment that should be getting top ratings. Why would this languish as a 2 while comments like "this sucks... bush is a nazi... and michael moore rulz" get all the mod points??
Should I sacrifice some karma to whore for a gmail invite?? Ok, I'll bite.
Little boy comes home one day with a question for Dad. "I've been hearing some kids at school talking, and I want to ask you something."
"What's that, son?"
"What's the difference between a pussy and a cunt?"
"What!?!? Where did you hear that?"
"Just from some kids talking. Can't you tell me?"
Dad thinks for a minute. "Okay, son," he says. "I guess you're old enough to have questions like that. I'm glad you came to me."
He leads the little boy upstairs, where his wife is asleep in the bed. Very slowly and quietly, he lifts up the blanket to expose the wife's legs. Then he lifts up her night shirt to expose her nether regions. "See that, boy?" he whispers to the young lad, "That's pussy."
The little boy, watching intently, slowly stretches his hand out toward the bed.
"No, no!" the father urges quietly. "Don't touch it... You'll wake up the cunt!".
Hee hee.
Send that invite to hholt AT lizardslounge dot org.
I know there's another more normaly used law that could be used as well, but darn if I can recall the name of it right now. Someone here will know it though most likely.
im part of that "rock'n'roll / mtv / kazaa" generation...
rock's still kewl, mtv never was, and kazaa was, but it the recording industry ass of America killed it.
You were probably not around for the first year or two of MTV. It actually WAS cool, then. They played music videos (really!) and nothing but. There weren't even any commercials, at first. Most of the videos were just the band singing or playing.
Obviously, things changed rather quickly. But, it's not fair to say it was never cool.
Then we should lobby for a copyright law that can't be changed, accept by 100% senate, 100% representative, and 100% congressional approval vote, which states a single point in time for a copyrighted work to expire.
Great idea! I'll help. How about cutting me a check for, let's see... $140,000 for registration and 6 months expenses. I'll pack my bags for D.C.
Oh, and can you schedule a few private parties at some Virginia Country Clubs? That would be great. Thanks!
No, sorry, but corporations do not pay taxes, only individuals do. Everyone talks about "corporate taxes", but economists realize that those taxes are only a means to hide the taxes that individuals pay.
Think of it this way: company A makes widgets. They sell for $1 each, and cost.50 to make. Profit to the shareholders is.50 each widget. Now the government decides to tax the profits of company A at, say, 50%. Net profits are now only.25. The shareholders become upset, so company A raises the price of widgets to $1.50. Now profits are back to.50, the shareholders are happy, and the pitiful consumer's taxes have now gone up.
"it's not appropriate to wear T-shirts and jeans to work, wear a nice shirt and tie" is a human rights violation.
Nope, you've got it backwards. Work where you want to, and refuse a job where you disagree with the dress code. A human rights violation is when a business owner decides he wants all of his employees, when representing his company, to wear a shirt and tie, but you tell him "you can't". No one is forced to work for this guy, but he should be able to specify any rules he wants that anyone can comply with. After all, he is paying for it.
AFAIK, there are as yet no government mandates (in the US, anyway) requiring dress codes anywhere (except maybe hair nets for cooks - health issue). You are advocating rules for that tell employers what they can do, which is unreasonable, and is a human rights violation.
Get it straight. Part of the human rights equation is not interfering with anybody else's rights.
freedesktop.org has been working on this for some time, although I don't think there are any really great solutions yet.
The really weird thing is that a slashdot search of freedesktop returns no hits at all. You would think with all the standardization stuff these guys are working on, they'd be getting metion all the time.
Has anyone thought the only way to combat this maybe to have the FSF start patenting things? I'm not sure of the cost, but at least it'll prevent evil corps from doing it first.
I really think this is a good idea. The patents could be made available to any free software project that gets targeted by some corporation with patents. Then it's like, "Ok, you make your patent available freely, or you pay FSF $100 mil for the use of ours".
Corporations do this "cross-licensing" stuff all the time. Why couldn't it be used to protect free/small software projects, too?
And yet, almost every other country in the world has ratified it, and yet the recent performance of the US economy is no better than that of Australia, or the EU.
No, they haven't. In fact, it's probably never going to get implemented because not enough countries have ratified it (it requires enough nations to make up 55% of emissions before going into effect).
Even if it did, it is probably not going to have a significant impact. Developing nations are completely immune, meaning, for instance, China can spew as much greenhouse gas as they want. And they are growing pretty fast (and using more and more fossil fuels all the time).
Even then, we're talking about a 2% reduction. 2%. Kyoto is not going to do anything. It's a wasted effort as far as global climate change goes. It's only an economic stick to beat up dominating economies. One reason that Australia has NOT ratified it, and has no intention to do so.
It's not my intention to come off as a luddite, but these materials are potentially nasty.
No, instead you come off like a chicken-little-hippy-activist scare monger.
Yes, precautions developing nanotech are important, but the potential benefits to everyone are tremendous. We need to be supporting this type of research, not running around encouraging the ignorant to demonstrate and complain about how worried they are.
This exact attitude is why there is a shortage of nuclear power in the US, which could have been replacing the polluting coal and oil plants over the last 20 years.
California didn't institute rolling blackouts because they thought it was convenient, it was because of the NIMBY lobby and vocal ignorant masses pushing legislation that made it impracticle to build ANY kind of power plant. Surprise, surprise, there is then an energy crisis on the left coast.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There are plenty of folks, such as the CBEN studying nanotech to ensure safety. We don't need to raise a public outcry.
Or instead why don't we find the reason for their agression and fix that instead?
From what I've seen, that reason seems to be something along the lines of "there are non-muslims in the world", or "the world is not fully compliant with islamic law".
Sorry, but I would rather fight and die for my freedoms than live in the kind of world that those guys envision.
You need to look at WHY they became "brutal murderous terrorists", is their anything that any of the coalition countries have done perhaps? Or did they just wake up one day and decide to start a war with most of the world?
Well, no, it's just (to many muslims) a continuation of the struggle that Muhammad started. Things they are taught from the Koran, like "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." are interpreted as an absolute duty, to be fulfilled at all costs. The "infidels" must be destroyed, and Islam must rule.
Sure, there are plenty of sects that do not preach violence. But the one's that do won't be appeased by any "live and let live" philosophy.
This is the same stupid debate as if smoking really causes cancer, or not? The effekt IS there, it's just not certain how strong it is and will be.
No, it's not. You prove cause and effect using observation of controlled studies. You can't do a controlled study of global warming, because we've only got 1 earth.
The closest you can get is doing some simulations, which may or may not account for all the known variables, and can never account for all of the unknown variables.
Petreley is not a reviewer, he writes an editorial (opinion) peices. His articles are always inflamatory, by design.
Seeing as a reference to his column has been posted on/., he seems to have gotten his point across. He must have gotten tired of ranting about SCO and blasting Microsoft.
And he has a good point. Why, when Windows users typically change that default behavior for explorer, would the Gnome folks break Nautilas, then obfuscate the setting to change it? It was a dumb move, as he says.
Moore's law was never intended to be a scientific theory. It was just a useful observation. It has never had anything other than economic incentive to keep it going. Using it to discuss the calculational ability of the universe is idiotic.
Exactly. Moore's law only works because it gave Intel (and these days, AMD, too) a goal for predictable release cycles. It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
The idea of "consciousness" really doesn't either. No credible physicist would get involved in this kind of pure philosopical theorizing without some evidence.
Have they provided some theory that also tells us the mass of a given consciousness?
Find another category. This does not belong in "science".
Slashdot Mirror
Kid! We don't like your kind, and we'll be sending your handle off to Washington.
Actually, they are (have you even listened to any of his songs?) He picks popular songs, usually current top hits, and parodies the song itself. You could possibly argue that he is parodying the artist, not the song, but that's just splitting hairs.
The subject of the song may change, sure, but that doesn't change the subject of the parody
Not that Google does not have a prominent place in my daily on-line interaction, but still... they are starting to seem very mainstream big media company-ish lately. I guess that happens to every corporation when the IPO fever hits.
And then, of course, I spend half the day getting nothing from Google but a -27 error.
Ok, end rant.
OMG! It's funny! Laugh!
I was actually going to RTFA before I posted, but I'm still waiting for it to compile.
Still, he doesn't seem like a very good spokesman for this cause. The history of his business dealings make it clear that he started out small, challenged all the big broadcast giants, gave them a run, but eventually lost the game.
His article often diverges into whining and blaming "the government", or somebody else, because he is no longer a major player in the game. "I had to buy MGM...", like he was forced to do it and that's somehow responsible for why they lost market share even faster than they were before the buyout.
No doubt Ted Turner was a competent business man, but he still wasn't good enough. A couple of his ideas turned out to be really good ones, and worked out really well. Most of his ideas were flops. We're still living with the colorized version of "It's a Wonderful Life", just to remind you of some of his boneheaded moves.
Sorry, Ted, that you lost. I still hope somebody at the FCC or cogress remembers you and gives you an ear, though, because I support your cause (this latest one, at least).
No, you missed the part about "(with a slight modification to make it Sender ID)".
Standard Microsoft "embrace and extend" technique.
And it's not just developers, it's also all the back-office tech guys that have been around since Novell owned the LAN. They know how much more difficult it is supporting a lot of Windows boxes than it is a lot of Netware boxes (plus you don't need as many). So these guys are now thinking maybe they can reduce some of those clunky Windows machines with Novell/Linux/SuSE alternatives.
The big hope is that those .NET developers (often pushed into that environment by gullible managers) can deploy those apps on Mono. Lots of folks see IIS (whether justified or not) as major vulnerability, security wise. From my experience, deploying an IIS installation that is both secure and will support everything the developers need is a major challenge. If Novell can make it happen with SuSE/Apache/Mono, they would have a lot of fans.
I got hooked myself once, so I guess that gmail invite is a tempting offer. But it's an AC! Do you all you "me too'ers" really sitting there waiting for your invites?
Reminds me of those old newsgroup postings in the early days(!?!?) of the Internet, "Hey, if you want free pr0n, just respond with your email address" followed by 150 "Me too" posts (check out the netabuse faq for the youngsters).
This is the kind of well-reasoned, thoughtful and clearly written comment that should be getting top ratings. Why would this languish as a 2 while comments like "this sucks... bush is a nazi... and michael moore rulz" get all the mod points??
Should I sacrifice some karma to whore for a gmail invite?? Ok, I'll bite.
Little boy comes home one day with a question for Dad. "I've been hearing some kids at school talking, and I want to ask you something."
"What's that, son?"
"What's the difference between a pussy and a cunt?"
"What!?!? Where did you hear that?"
"Just from some kids talking. Can't you tell me?"
Dad thinks for a minute. "Okay, son," he says. "I guess you're old enough to have questions like that. I'm glad you came to me."
He leads the little boy upstairs, where his wife is asleep in the bed. Very slowly and quietly, he lifts up the blanket to expose the wife's legs. Then he lifts up her night shirt to expose her nether regions. "See that, boy?" he whispers to the young lad, "That's pussy."
The little boy, watching intently, slowly stretches his hand out toward the bed.
"No, no!" the father urges quietly. "Don't touch it... You'll wake up the cunt!".
Hee hee.
Send that invite to hholt AT lizardslounge dot org.
Malicious prosecution?
oh.
You were probably not around for the first year or two of MTV. It actually WAS cool, then. They played music videos (really!) and nothing but. There weren't even any commercials, at first. Most of the videos were just the band singing or playing.
Obviously, things changed rather quickly. But, it's not fair to say it was never cool.
Great idea! I'll help. How about cutting me a check for, let's see... $140,000 for registration and 6 months expenses. I'll pack my bags for D.C.
Oh, and can you schedule a few private parties at some Virginia Country Clubs? That would be great. Thanks!
Think of it this way: company A makes widgets. They sell for $1 each, and cost .50 to make. Profit to the shareholders is .50 each widget. Now the government decides to tax the profits of company A at, say, 50%. Net profits are now only .25. The shareholders become upset, so company A raises the price of widgets to $1.50. Now profits are back to .50, the shareholders are happy, and the pitiful consumer's taxes have now gone up.
Nope, you've got it backwards. Work where you want to, and refuse a job where you disagree with the dress code. A human rights violation is when a business owner decides he wants all of his employees, when representing his company, to wear a shirt and tie, but you tell him "you can't". No one is forced to work for this guy, but he should be able to specify any rules he wants that anyone can comply with. After all, he is paying for it.
AFAIK, there are as yet no government mandates (in the US, anyway) requiring dress codes anywhere (except maybe hair nets for cooks - health issue). You are advocating rules for that tell employers what they can do, which is unreasonable, and is a human rights violation.
Get it straight. Part of the human rights equation is not interfering with anybody else's rights.
The really weird thing is that a slashdot search of freedesktop returns no hits at all. You would think with all the standardization stuff these guys are working on, they'd be getting metion all the time.
Has anyone thought the only way to combat this maybe to have the FSF start patenting things? I'm not sure of the cost, but at least it'll prevent evil corps from doing it first.
I really think this is a good idea. The patents could be made available to any free software project that gets targeted by some corporation with patents. Then it's like, "Ok, you make your patent available freely, or you pay FSF $100 mil for the use of ours".
Corporations do this "cross-licensing" stuff all the time. Why couldn't it be used to protect free/small software projects, too?
No, they haven't. In fact, it's probably never going to get implemented because not enough countries have ratified it (it requires enough nations to make up 55% of emissions before going into effect).
Even if it did, it is probably not going to have a significant impact. Developing nations are completely immune, meaning, for instance, China can spew as much greenhouse gas as they want. And they are growing pretty fast (and using more and more fossil fuels all the time).
Even then, we're talking about a 2% reduction. 2%. Kyoto is not going to do anything. It's a wasted effort as far as global climate change goes. It's only an economic stick to beat up dominating economies. One reason that Australia has NOT ratified it, and has no intention to do so.
No, instead you come off like a chicken-little-hippy-activist scare monger.
Yes, precautions developing nanotech are important, but the potential benefits to everyone are tremendous. We need to be supporting this type of research, not running around encouraging the ignorant to demonstrate and complain about how worried they are.
This exact attitude is why there is a shortage of nuclear power in the US, which could have been replacing the polluting coal and oil plants over the last 20 years.
California didn't institute rolling blackouts because they thought it was convenient, it was because of the NIMBY lobby and vocal ignorant masses pushing legislation that made it impracticle to build ANY kind of power plant. Surprise, surprise, there is then an energy crisis on the left coast.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There are plenty of folks, such as the CBEN studying nanotech to ensure safety. We don't need to raise a public outcry.
From what I've seen, that reason seems to be something along the lines of "there are non-muslims in the world", or "the world is not fully compliant with islamic law".
Sorry, but I would rather fight and die for my freedoms than live in the kind of world that those guys envision.
You need to look at WHY they became "brutal murderous terrorists", is their anything that any of the coalition countries have done perhaps? Or did they just wake up one day and decide to start a war with most of the world?
Well, no, it's just (to many muslims) a continuation of the struggle that Muhammad started. Things they are taught from the Koran, like "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." are interpreted as an absolute duty, to be fulfilled at all costs. The "infidels" must be destroyed, and Islam must rule.
Sure, there are plenty of sects that do not preach violence. But the one's that do won't be appeased by any "live and let live" philosophy.
No, it's not. You prove cause and effect using observation of controlled studies. You can't do a controlled study of global warming, because we've only got 1 earth.
The closest you can get is doing some simulations, which may or may not account for all the known variables, and can never account for all of the unknown variables.
Oh, wait. Nazis. I guess the discussion is over.
Seeing as a reference to his column has been posted on /., he seems to have gotten his point across. He must have gotten tired of ranting about SCO and blasting Microsoft.
And he has a good point. Why, when Windows users typically change that default behavior for explorer, would the Gnome folks break Nautilas, then obfuscate the setting to change it? It was a dumb move, as he says.
Exactly. Moore's law only works because it gave Intel (and these days, AMD, too) a goal for predictable release cycles. It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
The idea of "consciousness" really doesn't either. No credible physicist would get involved in this kind of pure philosopical theorizing without some evidence.
Have they provided some theory that also tells us the mass of a given consciousness?
Find another category. This does not belong in "science".