Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them
This is a... media desensitisation that teaches kids...
Perhaps you could get your collective heads out of your asses and admit that this is true
You may agree or disagree with her as to what should be done about it, but there is no disputing the fact that the games out there are doing these things, and that they do have an effect of some sort on the minds of those that play them.
Say you don't think what's happening is a problem if you wish, say it's a problem but that the solution is worse than the disease if you wish, but don't try to pretend that what she's talking about isn't real. Just makes you come off blind, stupid and willfully ignorant.
With all the developers bitching about Java and the fact that it's not free, and considering the fact that there is a massive base of Java users and developers that are friendly to the idea of a *nix system to be won over, they sure do seem to be dragging their feet at getting an up to date free JVM.
Java is one of those things that you CONSTANTLY see ppl in the free software camp bitching about. Why don't they bloody well put their heads together, through their weight behind one of the many free software projects out there that are working on the problem and clean-room reimplement the damn thing if it's such an issue?
Even if they couldn't make a free JVM and call it Java, they could still include it all the distributions configured to drive things like OOo. I can't imagine that an OpenOffice 2.0 Kaffe Edition (or whatever the JVM clone turns out to be called) would be such a big task if everyone stepped up to the plate where the JVM was concerned.
Re:Only makes sense
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
How can wiretaps even be remotely useful anymore? Unless you catch someone who is being stupid and talking on a potentially insecure phone line about something he shouldn't have done..
As far as VOIP goes, it's very significant that it allows you to cross the line between the internet and the telephone network and breaks the government tracking of that relatively closed system on a global scale. The internet isn't just implemented in a fashion that is open and relatively uncontrolled, it is also destroying the existing control of another network by interfacing with it. Would you really not expect a response from the governments who have benefited from that control?
Outside the VOIP thing, even if you can't crack into someones communications, I can think of lots of benefits in being able to monitor their lines if you're trying to investigate them. Unless they're flooding their channel with a constant encrypted data stream to you can track the timing of their communications. You can track where the communications are being relayed from and to. And you can track what they communicate anytime they access systems that are outside the closed system they would presumably be using for their communications.
I'd suggest you stay away from a life of crime... you don't seem to have a very good understanding of the dangers involved:P
Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine
Exactly. You didn't write the song, make the move, etc. If you want to own the content, create it or pay someone to create. It cost more than $.99 a song, or $19.99 a movie.
The pretense is that every media container you own - CD, DVD, book, magazine, etc - is a licensed copy of that type of media alone. You do not have the right of use for the exact same content in another form.
Well, if you want to be quite real about it, no one owns the song. Or the movie. All anyone owns are copies of it on physical media, aside from that, it's not owned by anyone. We currently have laws that attribute control over the permissibility of making a copy, but that doesn't mean they own it.
Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't. DRM protected content usually includes such provisions, such as iTunes allowing you to burn CD's of the material. The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit. The wholesale redistribution of that content via Peer to Peer networks should not be considered "Fair Use".
This is all nonsense, of course. And we have let them build a business on the nonsense for far too long
So your proposal is to stop allowing people to profit from their creations? Which might work for simple works, like songs, where a an artists might be driven by the need to create enough to invest his time writing new songs, but who would invest more than a few thousand to create a movie that movie theaters could just copy and display for free? Well, the Government and other advertisers I guess.
I don't see why we need to allow people to profit from controlling their creations when we can set up structures that reward them for continuing to create. Right now in the music business, the copy is the product and the advertising is the person running around the world creating. This is backwards. The copy should be the advertisement, the performance should be the product, the free and open exchange should grow, and the laws should act accordingly.
I have long since drawn my own line in the sand.
Great! Where can I check out the content you created and licensed under the Creative Commons license? So long as your line is "I won't purchase DRM media", thats fine. Just don't extend that to "I don't like the terms you offer this non-neccessity product under, but choose to consume it anyway without compensating you".
I don't have any creative commons media, personally. But I've created one heck of a lot of code, ensured I kept the right to reuse most of it, freely give it out to other people and to clients under no license requirements whatsoever, thus allowing them to make themselves a lot of money, and I really don't give two shits if anyone copies it or not because I'm not being rewarded for an "exclusive right to copy owner", I'm being rewarded for being a creator.
Furthermore, contrary to the popular media depiction, the current system isn't generally full of artists that are "exclusive right to copy owners" and get paid on that ownership.
It's got a lot of artists who give up their "exclusive right to copy ownership" to big corporations so they can hopefully get a decent cut of the rewards from their touring (ie getting paid for continuing to create).
It's got some big corporations situating themselves between the artists and the vast concert going public (ie the artists real customers) and using that situation to successfully demand "ownership" of this "exclusive right to copy" as the price of access to the market, all the while using the control of this infrastructure to situate their own interests as the interests of the artists in public media and in goverment.
No. I hate commercials. Hate them. No, let me rephrase that. I FUCKING HATE THEM AND WILL NOT WATCH COMMERCIAL TELEVISION EVER. I also won't let my kid watch either. Period.
Despite this, I get exposed to lots of new music. Currently have more music on my machine that I haven't gotten around to listening to for the first time than stuff I have.
And there's nothing particularly new or different coming out of the machine anyways. Just the same recycled crap.
i guess some people are just inward and stuffy than me
Perhaps some of us don't like having our brains or our experience polluted by advertisements attempting to manipulate us into buying the latest crap, and are prepared to find alternatives. Personally, I make a sincere effort to not buy anything I've ever seen advertised if there are alternatives available, and I've already taught my kid to understand that commercials are all about lying to you and manipulating you into doing or buying things.
Personally, I find your post ignorant and offensive. Just because you don't think there's a problem with being exposed to constant systematic manipulation doesn't mean people who don't share your view are inward and stuffy. I'd even harbour a guess that those of us who actually take the time to look for new music and determine what we like instead of just listening to whatever the shit-of-the-month is until it grows on us are exposed to more new and different music than you.
Mealy mouthed arrogant presumptious little twat...
You're wrong. They don't. They use software, lets them add additional file format support.
And from what I've been reading, the reason you can't play some media on them, like Vorbis for example, is because the processors they use can't handle the floating point operations involved.
They replace a picture with a hyperlink to the picture and this elevates it to art?
A big spraypainted mural on the side of a run down building is graffiti elevated to art. This is more like sinking to the level of a phone number in a bathroom stall.
I feel stupider for having been exposed to this idiocy.
Like I said, I'm not really sure... I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. But regardless, the real gist of my point is that, while it may not be defined as "libel" (and I've seen a lot of conflicting stuff on this point), the fact remains that disclosing private information about private individuals that damages their reputation can land you on the wrong side of the law even if what you say is true.
That's nice. Very interesting. Never heard of it before despite it's having been released in 2002, and it sure doesn't seem to have taken the world by storm.
So is that co-incidence, or are you trying to support my argument?
You're right. You can only be charged with defamation if your statements are false. But as understand it, you can still be charged with libel for violating someones privacy rights. The degree of privacy that you are entitled to varies depending on your status as a public figure or lack thereof. If you are publishing facts about a private individual and cannot demonstrate in court that it was of the public interest, that's a violation of privacy tort law and (and i may be wrong here) is considered libel.
So I could publish information about Martha Stewarts finances because she is a public figure and it is a matter of public interest. That is acceptable. But if I was to go digging through my ex's trash and find out that she hasn't paid her credit card bills in 3 months and publish that information, that is libel. Not because it isn't true, but because it's none of the publics business and causes her harm by tarnishing her reputation.
So yes, if a defamation lawsuit goes to trial, truth is a defense. But from what I understand, defamation is not always the only relevant factor in a libel suit.
Oh, and I'm not an expert in this area. Which is why I'm not going to edit Wikipedia. But I'm able to edit the Wikipedia article, which is why I don't place a whole lot of credence in what Wikipedia says anyways. I'll start using them as a reference right after I start getting stock tips off slashdot. Wikipedia is a great place to go to bring you from total ignorance to the point where you know what to start researching for yourself, but I certainly wouldn't be using them as a reference any time soon.
That is false, at least in American law. You can be convicted of libel even if what you say is the truth. You have the right not to have people taking your private business and making it public knowledge.
In general, privacy law consists of four distinct "torts" or legal wrongs: intrusion upon seclusion; appropriation of name or likeness; public disclosure of private facts; and publicity placing a person in a false light.
Of course, since no one actually made any public disclosure except the person who was supposedly libeled, and since that person elected to put their details up on a public forum of their own accord, I don't think they'll be charged with defamation of any sort any time soon
It's a response to the +0 Funny/-1 Offtopic situation. Lots more moderators seem to be modding funny stuff interesting or insightful so the person doesn't lose a bunch of karma for being moderated back down to 2 by those with no sense of humour.
I haven't seen a draft of GPLv3 yet, but I know that one focus is to enable users of software to get access to the source, even if they don't have access to the binaries.
That would be pretty stupid. Being forced to distribute source if you elect to distribute the binary is one thing. Being forced to distribute ANYTHING when you are just USING the software, however, is too ornerous to be tolerated. I would actively look for a GPLV2 fork of the code or use a closed source alternative before I would accept a license like that. And I sure as hell wouldn't recommend it to any of my clients.
Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom....
on
Canada Says No To DMCA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Blaming this on weed is like blaming World War II on the German sausages causing indigestion.
Not really. Think about it.
Scenario 1: Pot is legal. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. You pay your taxes and uphold the law. The cops don't bother you.
Would you shoot a cop?
Scenario 2: Pot is illegal. If you are caught selling it, you get a large fine and possibly some jail time. If you are caught using it, you get a small fine. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. Cops have been tipped off and are coming for you, and if you get caught you face a $20,000 fine up to a year in jail.
Would you shoot a cop?
Scenario 3: Pot is illegal. If you are caught selling it, you go to jail for 20 years. If you are caught using it, you are sent to jail for 3 years. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. Cops have been tipped off and are coming for you, and if you get caught you go away for the rest of your life.
Would you shoot a cop?
It appears, because of this event, that they will be shelving legistlation to reduce the penalties involved in marijuana. Does anyone else think this is really stupid, or is it just me?
As for the popularity of hip-hop in Canada, it is actually very popular with the African Canadian community...all 1 of them.
What are you talking about? There are TONS of African-Canadians up here. Most of them are decended from ppl who escaped slavery in the US on the underground railway, as a matter of fact.
And Hip-Hop is also very popular amongst bored white upper-middle-class teenaged preppy gangster-wannabes.
Hopefully that'll redeem Canada from all the recent bad press it got on Slashdot!
What are you talking about? Slashdot and its readership are primarally American. As far as I'm concerned, if they don't like how we're running things up here, that's a sign that we're doing things right:P
Give it time... between this, the marijuana-reform legislation and the gay and lesbian marriges we'll be part of the Axis of Evil in no time, and they'll start contemplating dropping nuclear-waste-I-mean-bunker-buster-bombs on us too.
That's just wrong. You don't need a capitalistic system to have competition, and you don't need a financial reward to provide motivation for competition either. Look at Gnome and KDE, to pick an example that is consistent with the forum... they compete, and while you might be able to make the argument that they have capitalistic drivers now that the corps have gotten involved, they certainly haven't always been that way.
There is no reason why you couldn't have a society with a democratic government and a communistic economy and have healthy competition as well. Fame, pride, hubris, independance, all of these are powerful drivers for wanting to prove that "your way" is better than "their way", "your way" should be adopted on a larger scale and you and yours should be tasked with supervising.
Now, I wouldn't choose the population of too many western societies in my attempt to assemble such a society, because quite frankly, they've been socialized for their entire lives to be selfish and view a moment of need by another as an opportunity to exploit them for financial gain rather than to help them out. But that doesn't mean that such a society is outside the realms of possibility. I'd certainly rather live in such a society than the maladapted, stunted, unfriendly and unsustainable one I live in now.
How about an American being a world-class football (soccer) player such as Tim Howard, goalkeeper for the most famous team in the world -- Manchester United of England.
He was talking about sports, not games. Soccer is so boring the fans fight each other to liven things up.
I don't want to shut up and deal with it. I want to get all my buddies and go chase them down with pitchforks and a noose old school style. And if I get enough buddies together, it's not going to matter how much they sell, now is it?
I know how we can get rid of spam! All we have to do is convince Dubya that spam funds terrorism... him and his buddies have the biggest pitchforks around, and they get a thrill in the crotch from using them, so you know they'll be down for anything.
between that and having to move to the Pentium M line
Don't you mean having to move back to the P3 line? As far as I'm concerned, the Pentium Ms are a glaring example of how stupid the whole P4 experiment was. They applied their shrunken process and advancements in material technology to the P3, retrofit a few of the things they picked up along the way on the P4s and called it a Pentium M. And look how its performance compares with the P4s!
Imagine what the performance of these Pentium Ms would have been if Intel hadn't wasted all that time on the P4s in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them
... media desensitisation that teaches kids...
This is a
Perhaps you could get your collective heads out of your asses and admit that this is true
You may agree or disagree with her as to what should be done about it, but there is no disputing the fact that the games out there are doing these things, and that they do have an effect of some sort on the minds of those that play them.
Say you don't think what's happening is a problem if you wish, say it's a problem but that the solution is worse than the disease if you wish, but don't try to pretend that what she's talking about isn't real. Just makes you come off blind, stupid and willfully ignorant.
With all the developers bitching about Java and the fact that it's not free, and considering the fact that there is a massive base of Java users and developers that are friendly to the idea of a *nix system to be won over, they sure do seem to be dragging their feet at getting an up to date free JVM.
Java is one of those things that you CONSTANTLY see ppl in the free software camp bitching about. Why don't they bloody well put their heads together, through their weight behind one of the many free software projects out there that are working on the problem and clean-room reimplement the damn thing if it's such an issue?
Even if they couldn't make a free JVM and call it Java, they could still include it all the distributions configured to drive things like OOo. I can't imagine that an OpenOffice 2.0 Kaffe Edition (or whatever the JVM clone turns out to be called) would be such a big task if everyone stepped up to the plate where the JVM was concerned.
How can wiretaps even be remotely useful anymore? Unless you catch someone who is being stupid and talking on a potentially insecure phone line about something he shouldn't have done..
:P
As far as VOIP goes, it's very significant that it allows you to cross the line between the internet and the telephone network and breaks the government tracking of that relatively closed system on a global scale. The internet isn't just implemented in a fashion that is open and relatively uncontrolled, it is also destroying the existing control of another network by interfacing with it. Would you really not expect a response from the governments who have benefited from that control?
Outside the VOIP thing, even if you can't crack into someones communications, I can think of lots of benefits in being able to monitor their lines if you're trying to investigate them. Unless they're flooding their channel with a constant encrypted data stream to you can track the timing of their communications. You can track where the communications are being relayed from and to. And you can track what they communicate anytime they access systems that are outside the closed system they would presumably be using for their communications.
I'd suggest you stay away from a life of crime... you don't seem to have a very good understanding of the dangers involved
Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine
Exactly. You didn't write the song, make the move, etc. If you want to own the content, create it or pay someone to create. It cost more than $.99 a song, or $19.99 a movie.
The pretense is that every media container you own - CD, DVD, book, magazine, etc - is a licensed copy of that type of media alone. You do not have the right of use for the exact same content in another form.
Well, if you want to be quite real about it, no one owns the song. Or the movie. All anyone owns are copies of it on physical media, aside from that, it's not owned by anyone. We currently have laws that attribute control over the permissibility of making a copy, but that doesn't mean they own it.
Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't. DRM protected content usually includes such provisions, such as iTunes allowing you to burn CD's of the material. The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit. The wholesale redistribution of that content via Peer to Peer networks should not be considered "Fair Use".
This is all nonsense, of course. And we have let them build a business on the nonsense for far too long
So your proposal is to stop allowing people to profit from their creations? Which might work for simple works, like songs, where a an artists might be driven by the need to create enough to invest his time writing new songs, but who would invest more than a few thousand to create a movie that movie theaters could just copy and display for free? Well, the Government and other advertisers I guess.
I don't see why we need to allow people to profit from controlling their creations when we can set up structures that reward them for continuing to create. Right now in the music business, the copy is the product and the advertising is the person running around the world creating. This is backwards. The copy should be the advertisement, the performance should be the product, the free and open exchange should grow, and the laws should act accordingly.
I have long since drawn my own line in the sand.
Great! Where can I check out the content you created and licensed under the Creative Commons license? So long as your line is "I won't purchase DRM media", thats fine. Just don't extend that to "I don't like the terms you offer this non-neccessity product under, but choose to consume it anyway without compensating you".
I don't have any creative commons media, personally. But I've created one heck of a lot of code, ensured I kept the right to reuse most of it, freely give it out to other people and to clients under no license requirements whatsoever, thus allowing them to make themselves a lot of money, and I really don't give two shits if anyone copies it or not because I'm not being rewarded for an "exclusive right to copy owner", I'm being rewarded for being a creator.
Furthermore, contrary to the popular media depiction, the current system isn't generally full of artists that are "exclusive right to copy owners" and get paid on that ownership.
It's got a lot of artists who give up their "exclusive right to copy ownership" to big corporations so they can hopefully get a decent cut of the rewards from their touring (ie getting paid for continuing to create).
It's got some big corporations situating themselves between the artists and the vast concert going public (ie the artists real customers) and using that situation to successfully demand "ownership" of this "exclusive right to copy" as the price of access to the market, all the while using the control of this infrastructure to situate their own interests as the interests of the artists in public media and in goverment.
Now, there aren't that many of thes
Guess I'm out of date...
but do you watch tv?
No. I hate commercials. Hate them. No, let me rephrase that. I FUCKING HATE THEM AND WILL NOT WATCH COMMERCIAL TELEVISION EVER. I also won't let my kid watch either. Period.
Despite this, I get exposed to lots of new music. Currently have more music on my machine that I haven't gotten around to listening to for the first time than stuff I have.
And there's nothing particularly new or different coming out of the machine anyways. Just the same recycled crap.
i guess some people are just inward and stuffy than me
Perhaps some of us don't like having our brains or our experience polluted by advertisements attempting to manipulate us into buying the latest crap, and are prepared to find alternatives. Personally, I make a sincere effort to not buy anything I've ever seen advertised if there are alternatives available, and I've already taught my kid to understand that commercials are all about lying to you and manipulating you into doing or buying things.
Personally, I find your post ignorant and offensive. Just because you don't think there's a problem with being exposed to constant systematic manipulation doesn't mean people who don't share your view are inward and stuffy. I'd even harbour a guess that those of us who actually take the time to look for new music and determine what we like instead of just listening to whatever the shit-of-the-month is until it grows on us are exposed to more new and different music than you.
Mealy mouthed arrogant presumptious little twat...
You're wrong. They don't. They use software, lets them add additional file format support.
And from what I've been reading, the reason you can't play some media on them, like Vorbis for example, is because the processors they use can't handle the floating point operations involved.
They replace a picture with a hyperlink to the picture and this elevates it to art?
A big spraypainted mural on the side of a run down building is graffiti elevated to art. This is more like sinking to the level of a phone number in a bathroom stall.
I feel stupider for having been exposed to this idiocy.
Like I said, I'm not really sure... I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. But regardless, the real gist of my point is that, while it may not be defined as "libel" (and I've seen a lot of conflicting stuff on this point), the fact remains that disclosing private information about private individuals that damages their reputation can land you on the wrong side of the law even if what you say is true.
That's nice. Very interesting. Never heard of it before despite it's having been released in 2002, and it sure doesn't seem to have taken the world by storm.
So is that co-incidence, or are you trying to support my argument?
You're right. You can only be charged with defamation if your statements are false. But as understand it, you can still be charged with libel for violating someones privacy rights. The degree of privacy that you are entitled to varies depending on your status as a public figure or lack thereof. If you are publishing facts about a private individual and cannot demonstrate in court that it was of the public interest, that's a violation of privacy tort law and (and i may be wrong here) is considered libel.
So I could publish information about Martha Stewarts finances because she is a public figure and it is a matter of public interest. That is acceptable. But if I was to go digging through my ex's trash and find out that she hasn't paid her credit card bills in 3 months and publish that information, that is libel. Not because it isn't true, but because it's none of the publics business and causes her harm by tarnishing her reputation.
So yes, if a defamation lawsuit goes to trial, truth is a defense. But from what I understand, defamation is not always the only relevant factor in a libel suit.
Oh, and I'm not an expert in this area. Which is why I'm not going to edit Wikipedia. But I'm able to edit the Wikipedia article, which is why I don't place a whole lot of credence in what Wikipedia says anyways. I'll start using them as a reference right after I start getting stock tips off slashdot. Wikipedia is a great place to go to bring you from total ignorance to the point where you know what to start researching for yourself, but I certainly wouldn't be using them as a reference any time soon.
(c) they were actually wrong.
That is false, at least in American law. You can be convicted of libel even if what you say is the truth. You have the right not to have people taking your private business and making it public knowledge.
In general, privacy law consists of four distinct "torts" or legal wrongs: intrusion upon seclusion; appropriation of name or likeness; public disclosure of private facts; and publicity placing a person in a false light.
Of course, since no one actually made any public disclosure except the person who was supposedly libeled, and since that person elected to put their details up on a public forum of their own accord, I don't think they'll be charged with defamation of any sort any time soon
It's a response to the +0 Funny/-1 Offtopic situation. Lots more moderators seem to be modding funny stuff interesting or insightful so the person doesn't lose a bunch of karma for being moderated back down to 2 by those with no sense of humour.
I haven't seen a draft of GPLv3 yet, but I know that one focus is to enable users of software to get access to the source, even if they don't have access to the binaries.
That would be pretty stupid. Being forced to distribute source if you elect to distribute the binary is one thing. Being forced to distribute ANYTHING when you are just USING the software, however, is too ornerous to be tolerated. I would actively look for a GPLV2 fork of the code or use a closed source alternative before I would accept a license like that. And I sure as hell wouldn't recommend it to any of my clients.
Blaming this on weed is like blaming World War II on the German sausages causing indigestion.
Not really. Think about it.
Scenario 1: Pot is legal. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. You pay your taxes and uphold the law. The cops don't bother you.
Would you shoot a cop?
Scenario 2: Pot is illegal. If you are caught selling it, you get a large fine and possibly some jail time. If you are caught using it, you get a small fine. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. Cops have been tipped off and are coming for you, and if you get caught you face a $20,000 fine up to a year in jail.
Would you shoot a cop?
Scenario 3: Pot is illegal. If you are caught selling it, you go to jail for 20 years. If you are caught using it, you are sent to jail for 3 years. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. Cops have been tipped off and are coming for you, and if you get caught you go away for the rest of your life.
Would you shoot a cop?
It appears, because of this event, that they will be shelving legistlation to reduce the penalties involved in marijuana. Does anyone else think this is really stupid, or is it just me?
Sorry, only those who ARE would understand, and you clearly aren't :D
As for the popularity of hip-hop in Canada, it is actually very popular with the African Canadian community...all 1 of them.
What are you talking about? There are TONS of African-Canadians up here. Most of them are decended from ppl who escaped slavery in the US on the underground railway, as a matter of fact.
And Hip-Hop is also very popular amongst bored white upper-middle-class teenaged preppy gangster-wannabes.
Hopefully that'll redeem Canada from all the recent bad press it got on Slashdot!
:P
What are you talking about? Slashdot and its readership are primarally American. As far as I'm concerned, if they don't like how we're running things up here, that's a sign that we're doing things right
Give it time... between this, the marijuana-reform legislation and the gay and lesbian marriges we'll be part of the Axis of Evil in no time, and they'll start contemplating dropping nuclear-waste-I-mean-bunker-buster-bombs on us too.
And you're not... nah nah nah nah nah!
Yeah, so? Lots of ppl like you drinking beer and collecting welfare already, are there not?
That's just wrong. You don't need a capitalistic system to have competition, and you don't need a financial reward to provide motivation for competition either. Look at Gnome and KDE, to pick an example that is consistent with the forum... they compete, and while you might be able to make the argument that they have capitalistic drivers now that the corps have gotten involved, they certainly haven't always been that way.
There is no reason why you couldn't have a society with a democratic government and a communistic economy and have healthy competition as well. Fame, pride, hubris, independance, all of these are powerful drivers for wanting to prove that "your way" is better than "their way", "your way" should be adopted on a larger scale and you and yours should be tasked with supervising.
Now, I wouldn't choose the population of too many western societies in my attempt to assemble such a society, because quite frankly, they've been socialized for their entire lives to be selfish and view a moment of need by another as an opportunity to exploit them for financial gain rather than to help them out. But that doesn't mean that such a society is outside the realms of possibility. I'd certainly rather live in such a society than the maladapted, stunted, unfriendly and unsustainable one I live in now.
How about an American being a world-class football (soccer) player such as Tim Howard, goalkeeper for the most famous team in the world -- Manchester United of England.
He was talking about sports, not games. Soccer is so boring the fans fight each other to liven things up.
so shut up and deal with it
I don't want to shut up and deal with it. I want to get all my buddies and go chase them down with pitchforks and a noose old school style. And if I get enough buddies together, it's not going to matter how much they sell, now is it?
I know how we can get rid of spam! All we have to do is convince Dubya that spam funds terrorism... him and his buddies have the biggest pitchforks around, and they get a thrill in the crotch from using them, so you know they'll be down for anything.
When IE7 comes out, I can only imagine a handbrake-style stop in Firefox growth.
I don't think Microsoft want to continue with web browsers and standards. Seems to me like they're looking to Avalon to take care of it.
between that and having to move to the Pentium M line
Don't you mean having to move back to the P3 line? As far as I'm concerned, the Pentium Ms are a glaring example of how stupid the whole P4 experiment was. They applied their shrunken process and advancements in material technology to the P3, retrofit a few of the things they picked up along the way on the P4s and called it a Pentium M. And look how its performance compares with the P4s!
Imagine what the performance of these Pentium Ms would have been if Intel hadn't wasted all that time on the P4s in the first place.