Did you see the one time, I forget what they were covering, think it may have been a British royal scandal, and both Colbert and Stewart just broke down laughing?
Oh yes I did, and I think it qualifies as a best thing ever. Click here, and then the bottom left-hand corner link ("Prince Charles Scandal"). You'll need a RealPlayer plugin, but it's worth it.
I've you'd like a Gmail account, send me an email at chrislamothe@gmail.com and as I get invites I'll hook you up. I've hooked up 18 people this week alone.
"Wilco? That's so last year, dude. Have you heard (insert band nobody's ever heard of) yet? Check it out sometime....";)
Yr getting there. Two suggestions:
Specificity is Better: Don't just rag on the band, rag on something specific: "Yeah, well, I checked out their new record, and it didn't do much for me -- I can never figure out if they're post-melodic or melodic, and it sounds like they can't either. And the lyrics -- what the fuck's a 'cherry ghost'?"
Old is the new New, Lame is the new Cool: Since anything anyone will have heard of is automatically lame, don't try to be cutting edge, you'll just get caught out -- go for the past, rehabilitate someone unexpected: "Actually, man, I've been digging on Jimmy Buffet. No, not like the newer cheesey parrot feathers stuff, but his early ish. It's all folk-singer-songwriter stuff, and it's less fake-intellectual than some of those other guys. But it's real: I mean, "Son of a Son of a Sailor"? That speaks to a sort of hopeful purposelessness really eloquently."
This is the ever-so-fahsionable world of rock and roll snobbery we're talking about here: if you think it's really coming, let everyone know you're over Wilco before the backlash hits. The cancer stage of this attitude is the intolerable "anything anyone has heard of is crap" obscuritanism that's been prevalent ever since "alternative" became a marketing category.
Many of the reviewers there have vastly different opinions of many artists, and many have the typical indie rock prick mindset of "the more obscure it is the better". And the 10 point and single decimal scale has always irked me. What the fuck is the difference between a 6.7 album and a 7.3 album?
Y'know, Pitchformula is a much more fitting name for Pitchfork. I find that pitchfork reviews aren't so good for any sort of consumer guidance or artistic criticism, but at least give a snapshot of whatever the consenus indie-rock orthodoxy is at the moment. And the oh-so-precious two significant digit ratings serve as a sort of indie-rock orthodoxy stock report.
For example, let's look at Wilco's last few records: Being There, a "a spinoff of a successful band" that
with a score of 6.8, "[h]as its moments, but isn't strong"; Summerteeth, which shot right up to a 9.4 (ratings key: "Amazing"), the review getting bonus points for using the innane phrase "Elvis Costello-by-way-of-Phil Spector", and not mentioning already emerging record-label problems (although I can't help but think that those probably nudged the score up a bit); and then we get the much-ballyhooed Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, with record-label troubles so severe that they couldn't go unmentioned in the review, and a perhaps not-uncoincidental 10.0 (ratings key: "Essential") rating. There's no review for A Ghost Is Born yet (although those with up-to-date versions of QuickTime can have a listen at that last link), but past market performance suggests that although the review will be good, you probably should have sold at Yankee Hotel Foxtrot's 10.0.
Flash is internet pollution. (X)HTML is lighter-weight and thus faster, more accessible for people with disabilities, and just generally less crap. Plus, Google can tell you about the content of (X)HTML pages, but nothing, from Google to grep, can parse the content of a Flash movie. Flash has a nice little niche for silly animations and games, but it has become a cancer on the web as a navigation and content-presentation interface. An increase in its reach isn't something to celebrate.
SCO is fishing. They have a suit with IBM, and they're going after the FSF's dealings with contributors to random OSS projects? In other words, conversations between two parties NOT involved with the suit? They'll need a damned good reason for that to fly.
I think there's a degree of trying to have it both ways in the way that "the community" is responding to SCO here. This case is huge, not just in its implications for Linux, but in its scope, covering the GPL and open-source development models. And given (1) Linux's dependence on the GNU toolchain, both for development and use of Linux, (2) the fact that the FSF/GNU is the home for most of the thinking/writing on the technicalities of open-source development and licensing, there's at least a case that they have documents of some relevance to the case.
And, to substantiate my own theory, I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding of the way these things work is that parties subpoena more than they expect to be allowed to see, and make the judge earn her salary by figuring the mess out. And yeah, I hope that the judge is sensible enough to construe "relevant" narrowly.
You seem to think that anyone engaged in a lawsuit is entitled to any non-privileged information they want from. That's not just wrong, it's insane. Maybe you should read your own advice about not mistaking yourself for a lawyer.
It's neither wrong nor insane to suggest that litigants are entitled to subpoena information relevant to the action at hand. Now, as the FSF never stops spouting, GNU/FSF tools are so essential to Linux (both in terms of development and implementation) that there's a credible case to be made that there's no such thing as Linux without the GNU toolchain (see Stallman's gasbag arguments over why it should be called GNU, or, as a compromise GNU/Linux). So correspondance relating to the development of FSF/GNU software seems to meet a minimal relevance test, since the case turns in part on the open-source development model.
But that's neither here nor there really -- my original point was more limited, and since you missed it I'll make it more explicit: there is no peremptory privilege that attaches itself to contact between a developer and a project with which they participate that runs parallel to the solicitor-client privelege, contrary to the FSF's implication in the post at the top.
Why would communication between FSF and its contributors be confidential?
It kinda reminds me an alleged exchange between Dick Wolf (the producer of Law and Order), and Michael Moriarty (the guy who played the EADA before the guy who plays the EADA now). Someone was suing them over something or other, and Moriarty said to Wolf something to the effect of "Well, we'll just have to get another lawyer to deal with it," to which Wolf replied "Mike, you know you aren't really a lawyer, right?"
The point is:
If you go around acting like a lawyer long enough, you start thinking that you are one, and;
People who aren't lawyers shouldn't pretend to be lawyers.
There are a number of legal privileges, including between spouses, lawyers and clients, medical doctors and patients, and a few others, but there's no such thing as "geek-project" privilege.
Don't let them label you "autistic". Don't let them classify you "special education". You should be the one in control of your life, not a bunch of school counselors.
Autism isn't just a label: it's a group of symptoms that can be incredibly debilitating and limiting, but as they are better understood, can be mitigated. And that's why a diagnosis might be crucial, especially to someone with academic ambitions. Once a condition is identified, and to some extent understood, everyone involved -- students, teachers, medical-type folks, administrators -- can begin to formulate strategies to overcome the real obstacles that autism can present.
And know this: before we had labels like "autistic" "ADHD" "dyslexic" and what have you, people were just called "dumb" or "idiotic". I've worked with children with quote-unquote special needs, and they've been able to thrive exactly because their needs have been identified, and they've been given help. I don't disagree that labels have the power to trap and limit people, but a label like "autistic", which gives both the person with autism and their support network some leverage in coping with the condition, is infinitely preferable to a label like "moronic" or "crazy", terms that people with autism were often stuck with in the past.
Read about the education of such geniuses as Franklin, Edison and Einstein.
Most people aren't Einstein, or Franklin, or Edison, and it's awfully perilous to bank on being like them.
France has, at some time in the last thousand years, controlled most of mainland Europe, half of Africa, and some nice places in South East Asia and North America.
I've read some of what RMS has written, and I've taken a philosophy degree. Accusing someone with a philosophy degree of writing like Stallman is insulting.
Why The "Matrix-In-A-Matrix" Idea Is Stupid:
on
The Matrix: Resolutions
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Simply put, the Matrix-In-A-Matrix theory is dramatically untenable. It undermines any possible resolution in the films because there can always be another Matrix enclosing the last, another dream to wake up from, as it were.
For the movie to work dramatically, there needs to be some sort of possible conclusion, either to be achieved or frustrated. Setting the first two films in some sort of "higher-order" Matrix undercuts this in two ways: first, it tells the audience "hey, you know those first two movies? well, it turns out that nothing that happened in them counts, there's no real payoff, sorry about that", thus abusing the audience's investment in the fantasy world; second, it not only leaves open, but implicitly nods to the possibility that the second Matrix is in fact fraudulent as well, and that no matter how many times our heros "wake up", they'll still wake up in (another) Matrix. So the possible conclusion necessary for the narrative in the movie to function properly disappears, and all we're left with is bad acting and gee-whiz special effects.
I guess I'm in the minority here in that I find the pseudo-philosophical ruminations* of the Watchowskis tiresome and adolescent, but even I recognize that they know how to spin a good yarn, and they wouldn't ruin the dramatic structure in such an obvious way.
(*"But, like, dude, they talk about Plato on their website, and that "desert of the real" line is like, from some French post-somethingorother dude, and besides, it's so, you know, eastern." Exactly.)
Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.
I think you'd have to take a very limited view of the term "commercial interest" to come to that conclusion. For example, even the good ol' FSF considers the latest version of Apple's Public Source License
"Free", so it seems hard to argue that Darwin doesn't qualify as a "Free Unix". And given that Darwin is at the core of Apple's OS X, which has a larger userbase than Linux, and an active developer community, it's hard to argue that there isn't enormous "commerical interest" in Darwin.
And what, pray tell, was the genesis of Darwin? It's safe to say that the commercializability of the BSD license probably has something to do with it, given the prominent role the "BSD Subsystem" plays in Darwin's architecture. So maybe it's shortsighted and hasty to call those arguements "theoretical" and "automatically incorrect".
Since X11 structurally requires huge, non-standardized (in the sense that there are a number of non-compatible toolkits out there) external toolkits to function like a modern windowing system, it seems entirely appropriate to place the blame for bloat squarely on X11's shoulders.
Another respondant noted that if you add Fox News and the Republicans together, you'd end up in the #3 spot. However, if you add the votes for the Republican-controlled White House and Congress together with the votes for the GOP, you get an astounding 11190 votes, fully 3240 more votes than the RIAA.
Tesla, on the one hand, sucked seriously, but on the other hand, still get tonnes of play on "Classic Rock" stations with "Signs". So they have to still be clocking some pretty good royalty payments, and it'd be irresponsible to call them "poor". Also, 40-something skid radio station programmers still appreciate them, although I fail to see the relevance of their standing with the scientific community.
I saw Tesla open up for Skynard once, and I can confidently that they aren't at all geeks.
What's this talk about security people at layoffs / firings? And getting escorted out of the building right away?
Generally speaking, people who are in management or who have access to sensitive materials (think sysadmins or developers with code access or whatever) have that access removed immediately when they're fired, and that often means being escorted from the building (you'll note that "my account on the office server disappeared" is also a common theme). Companies obviously don't want former employee's walking out the door with potentially valuable intellectual property
Here in Sweden where I live, it's not like that at all. First of all, people always get atleast one month's notice. That's required by law. In many cases, you don't even have to show up for work during that month if you don't want to, but you still get full pay. I guess Swedish companies treat their employees so much better they don't feel the need to have security present at layoffs / firing, because they don't feel threatened by us.
I Have no idea if you're being serious, or if you're just some kind of pro-Sweden troll, but most North American jurisdictions have notice requirements too (2 weeks where I live), but companies often just give fired employees their salary for the notice period in lieu of notice, again, usually in situations where the presence of the fired employee would be disruptive or present a business risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes I did, and I think it qualifies as a best thing ever. Click here, and then the bottom left-hand corner link ("Prince Charles Scandal"). You'll need a RealPlayer plugin, but it's worth it.
Slashdot vs. a 1 Gig Inbox: Who Will Win?
Yr getting there. Two suggestions:
This is the ever-so-fahsionable world of rock and roll snobbery we're talking about here: if you think it's really coming, let everyone know you're over Wilco before the backlash hits. The cancer stage of this attitude is the intolerable "anything anyone has heard of is crap" obscuritanism that's been prevalent ever since "alternative" became a marketing category.
Y'know, Pitchformula is a much more fitting name for Pitchfork. I find that pitchfork reviews aren't so good for any sort of consumer guidance or artistic criticism, but at least give a snapshot of whatever the consenus indie-rock orthodoxy is at the moment. And the oh-so-precious two significant digit ratings serve as a sort of indie-rock orthodoxy stock report.
For example, let's look at Wilco's last few records: Being There, a "a spinoff of a successful band" that with a score of 6.8, "[h]as its moments, but isn't strong"; Summerteeth, which shot right up to a 9.4 (ratings key: "Amazing"), the review getting bonus points for using the innane phrase "Elvis Costello-by-way-of-Phil Spector", and not mentioning already emerging record-label problems (although I can't help but think that those probably nudged the score up a bit); and then we get the much-ballyhooed Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, with record-label troubles so severe that they couldn't go unmentioned in the review, and a perhaps not-uncoincidental 10.0 (ratings key: "Essential") rating. There's no review for A Ghost Is Born yet (although those with up-to-date versions of QuickTime can have a listen at that last link), but past market performance suggests that although the review will be good, you probably should have sold at Yankee Hotel Foxtrot's 10.0.
Why would you want it?
Flash is internet pollution. (X)HTML is lighter-weight and thus faster, more accessible for people with disabilities, and just generally less crap. Plus, Google can tell you about the content of (X)HTML pages, but nothing, from Google to grep, can parse the content of a Flash movie. Flash has a nice little niche for silly animations and games, but it has become a cancer on the web as a navigation and content-presentation interface. An increase in its reach isn't something to celebrate.
I think there's a degree of trying to have it both ways in the way that "the community" is responding to SCO here. This case is huge, not just in its implications for Linux, but in its scope, covering the GPL and open-source development models. And given (1) Linux's dependence on the GNU toolchain, both for development and use of Linux, (2) the fact that the FSF/GNU is the home for most of the thinking/writing on the technicalities of open-source development and licensing, there's at least a case that they have documents of some relevance to the case.
And, to substantiate my own theory, I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding of the way these things work is that parties subpoena more than they expect to be allowed to see, and make the judge earn her salary by figuring the mess out. And yeah, I hope that the judge is sensible enough to construe "relevant" narrowly.
It's neither wrong nor insane to suggest that litigants are entitled to subpoena information relevant to the action at hand. Now, as the FSF never stops spouting, GNU/FSF tools are so essential to Linux (both in terms of development and implementation) that there's a credible case to be made that there's no such thing as Linux without the GNU toolchain (see Stallman's gasbag arguments over why it should be called GNU, or, as a compromise GNU/Linux). So correspondance relating to the development of FSF/GNU software seems to meet a minimal relevance test, since the case turns in part on the open-source development model.
But that's neither here nor there really -- my original point was more limited, and since you missed it I'll make it more explicit: there is no peremptory privilege that attaches itself to contact between a developer and a project with which they participate that runs parallel to the solicitor-client privelege, contrary to the FSF's implication in the post at the top.
It kinda reminds me an alleged exchange between Dick Wolf (the producer of Law and Order), and Michael Moriarty (the guy who played the EADA before the guy who plays the EADA now). Someone was suing them over something or other, and Moriarty said to Wolf something to the effect of "Well, we'll just have to get another lawyer to deal with it," to which Wolf replied "Mike, you know you aren't really a lawyer, right?"
The point is:
There are a number of legal privileges, including between spouses, lawyers and clients, medical doctors and patients, and a few others, but there's no such thing as "geek-project" privilege.
And know this: before we had labels like "autistic" "ADHD" "dyslexic" and what have you, people were just called "dumb" or "idiotic". I've worked with children with quote-unquote special needs, and they've been able to thrive exactly because their needs have been identified, and they've been given help. I don't disagree that labels have the power to trap and limit people, but a label like "autistic", which gives both the person with autism and their support network some leverage in coping with the condition, is infinitely preferable to a label like "moronic" or "crazy", terms that people with autism were often stuck with in the past.
Most people aren't Einstein, or Franklin, or Edison, and it's awfully perilous to bank on being like them.
Actually, the corpse won.
. . .and then they lost it all.
I've read some of what RMS has written, and I've taken a philosophy degree. Accusing someone with a philosophy degree of writing like Stallman is insulting.
Simply put, the Matrix-In-A-Matrix theory is dramatically untenable. It undermines any possible resolution in the films because there can always be another Matrix enclosing the last, another dream to wake up from, as it were.
For the movie to work dramatically, there needs to be some sort of possible conclusion, either to be achieved or frustrated. Setting the first two films in some sort of "higher-order" Matrix undercuts this in two ways: first, it tells the audience "hey, you know those first two movies? well, it turns out that nothing that happened in them counts, there's no real payoff, sorry about that", thus abusing the audience's investment in the fantasy world; second, it not only leaves open, but implicitly nods to the possibility that the second Matrix is in fact fraudulent as well, and that no matter how many times our heros "wake up", they'll still wake up in (another) Matrix. So the possible conclusion necessary for the narrative in the movie to function properly disappears, and all we're left with is bad acting and gee-whiz special effects.
I guess I'm in the minority here in that I find the pseudo-philosophical ruminations* of the Watchowskis tiresome and adolescent, but even I recognize that they know how to spin a good yarn, and they wouldn't ruin the dramatic structure in such an obvious way.
(*"But, like, dude, they talk about Plato on their website, and that "desert of the real" line is like, from some French post-somethingorother dude, and besides, it's so, you know, eastern." Exactly.)
I think you'd have to take a very limited view of the term "commercial interest" to come to that conclusion. For example, even the good ol' FSF considers the latest version of Apple's Public Source License "Free", so it seems hard to argue that Darwin doesn't qualify as a "Free Unix". And given that Darwin is at the core of Apple's OS X, which has a larger userbase than Linux, and an active developer community, it's hard to argue that there isn't enormous "commerical interest" in Darwin.
And what, pray tell, was the genesis of Darwin? It's safe to say that the commercializability of the BSD license probably has something to do with it, given the prominent role the "BSD Subsystem" plays in Darwin's architecture. So maybe it's shortsighted and hasty to call those arguements "theoretical" and "automatically incorrect".
Slashdot's Apache Section: For The Apache Admin Who Just Refuses To Get On The Mailing List.
Since X11 structurally requires huge, non-standardized (in the sense that there are a number of non-compatible toolkits out there) external toolkits to function like a modern windowing system, it seems entirely appropriate to place the blame for bloat squarely on X11's shoulders.
How does a country where people where hats on their feet, and hamburgers eat people help you find your way around Canada and the U.S.?
Another respondant noted that if you add Fox News and the Republicans together, you'd end up in the #3 spot. However, if you add the votes for the Republican-controlled White House and Congress together with the votes for the GOP, you get an astounding 11190 votes, fully 3240 more votes than the RIAA.
Tesla, on the one hand, sucked seriously, but on the other hand, still get tonnes of play on "Classic Rock" stations with "Signs". So they have to still be clocking some pretty good royalty payments, and it'd be irresponsible to call them "poor". Also, 40-something skid radio station programmers still appreciate them, although I fail to see the relevance of their standing with the scientific community.
I saw Tesla open up for Skynard once, and I can confidently that they aren't at all geeks.
. . .but as a fellow Canadian who occasionally gets voice-mail spam, the two that spring to mind were for a health club, and a guy running a particularly hopeless campaign for mayor of Toronto.
The CRTC is never your best bet. Unless you're powerful or rich.
But how many rods to the hogshead is that?