For what it's worth, yes, I want to subvert America's values.
But really, comparing 1960s Sitcoms to 2000s Sitcoms is really an unfair comparison. Sitcoms are really one of modern television's weaker points. Everyone knows that Two and a Half Men sucks. The better sitcoms on TV are ones which break the traditional sitcom format. (And now that I think of it, shows like Arrested Development and My Name is Earl very often have some sort of moral involved.)
What kind of loser cares about style? When I go to Wikipedia, I go there for one thing. Information puked at me at a very fast rate. Looking good is for normal people. Wikipedia is for the Internet.
No, it's him. Those are Simpsons references. Uh, it's from the episode where Marge somehow manages to find a Chanel suit marked down from $2800 to $90, and as a consequence is allowed to enter Springfield's classy side.
Western Culture is from Mars, Islamic Extremists are from Venus?
I get what you're saying in that I am a liberal-bleeding-heart and certainly want to take into consideration the things which led the middle east to be as fucked up as it currently is, but that analogy just strikes me as being very odd.
What I didn't know prior to reading that article was that Google was already "in" China, in that Chinese people were able to go to Google.com. It's just that it was really slow because Chinese ISPs were trying very hard to block all that bad parts of Google.com. With Google.cn, Google just does what Chinese ISPs were doing anyway, allowing people to have a slicker experience.
And:
Crucial to this analysis is the fact that our new Google.cn website is an additional service, not a replacement for Google.com in China. The Chinese-language Google.com will remain open, unfiltered and available to all Internet users worldwide.
I don't see how providing more information can be constrewed as censorship.
There's a very strong difference between an entrepeneur and an intellectual. An intellectual attempts to solve problems for the intellectual curiosity, whereas an entrepeneur solves problems so as to make money. Just because you are smart does not mean you are an intellectual.
You can be anti-intellectual and still appreciate entrepeneurs. An important aspect of anti-intellectualism is the belief that those eggheads should quit fucking around and get down to business. An entrepeneur (or an engineer, to a lesser degree) is a person who has gotten down to business.
A person can be anti-intellectual and still appreciate the things which intellectuals do. Similarly, people can like Spiderman and the Interweb but still wanna give geeks their respective wedgies.
"Science is like sex. Sure it gets results, but that's not why we do it." -- Richard Feynman
There's also percioception (the feeling of knowing where your body parts are in relation to each other) and really, most of the feelings of "touch" could be broken down into a few seperate senses. (Heat, standard contact, pain, etc.) The five senses that Aristotle tossed around are really not the best catagorization around, although they worked for his purposes.
Also, I'd quibble with his original comment, in that the sense isn't "time," but "memory."
My theory, which of course I pulled out of my ass and has no supporting evidence, is that Japan tends to value "society" more than the individual, relative to western countries. Thus, when a westerner is depressed, they will interpret it as the rest of the world being unfair. When a Japanese person is depressed, they will interpret it as their own personal failing.
"Straight" men can be attracted to little boys too. Children are generally more androgynous than adults, so just because you're not attracted to men doesn't mean you can't like little boys.
Slashdot is a "nerd" site, not a "tech" site. If you want pure tech, go to Ars Technica or whatever.
Nerds = social awkwardness + obsession in weird things + interest in science, math, and/or technology + an otherwise overintellectual attitude
This subject addresses science and social awkwardness. Also, it allows us to talk about twelve year old girls with prematurely huge breasts, which brings us to the Anime side of geekery. So this is a pretty nerdy subject, really.
Note that I said it was free speech in the same way libel is free speech. In other words, not the sort of free speech which courts are going to take seriously.
Speech is communication. The whole point of copyright is that if some idea is copyrighted, then you are not allowed to express it as freely as you otherwise would. Thus, copyright restricts your ability to communicate. Thus, copyright restricts your "free speech."
I agree with the spirit of your maniacal laughter, however, if not your substance. There's no way in hell that this argument has any validity from a legal standpoint, because the Copyright Act of 1790 predates the ratifaction of the First Amendment, and not once in the entire lifetime of said amendment has anyone decided that the first amendment repeals the constitutional ability of Congress to pass copyright laws, it may be considered to be established law.
However, from a more philosophically abstract point of view, the facts remain that when you pass copyright laws, you are restricting the ability of a person to say whatever the fuck they want to say. If people have a right to say whatever the fuck they want to say, then logically, people have a right to copy software.
Whether people have a right to say whatever the fuck they want to say is another question entirely, of course.
Best Buy offers tiered service. When you're just paying for basic service, you get a much different experience from when you're Bono. When you're Bono, they go the extra mile.
Well, yes. Copying software is ultimately just a form of speech, and therefore in principle should be considered a right. Of course, there are many other forms of speech which have been rendered illegal, (slander, espionage, "yelling fire in a crowded theater," threats, etc.) such that legally, the principle has been generally watered down to allow speech to be restricted to some degree as long as it doesn't restrict people's rights "too" much.
Kurzweil still very much thinks that the singularity will happen in 2030-ish. I imagine the author just found that a little hard to swallow, so he decided to push the year ahead himself.
Except I very explicitly proved that it is impossible. I am a huge fan of non-violent protest, but a couple people whining that they don't wanna use MSN to search the web isn't going to be enough to make China rethink their position on censorship. This is equivalent to if someone had tried to end apartheid by forcing South Africans to only drink diet cola.
Furthermore, Google is providing information, not soda. Even though they had to censor some of this information, even a little information will help foster a pro-freedom movement. The more information, the more freedom. So by censoring their material, they are helping to fight censorship.
Google is doing what they can to provide China with as much information as possible. How is this a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
For what it's worth, yes, I want to subvert America's values.
But really, comparing 1960s Sitcoms to 2000s Sitcoms is really an unfair comparison. Sitcoms are really one of modern television's weaker points. Everyone knows that Two and a Half Men sucks. The better sitcoms on TV are ones which break the traditional sitcom format. (And now that I think of it, shows like Arrested Development and My Name is Earl very often have some sort of moral involved.)
You know, that joke isn't really funny if you write the B in lower case.
Proccessors eat electrons and then poop them out at a lower voltage.
What kind of loser cares about style? When I go to Wikipedia, I go there for one thing. Information puked at me at a very fast rate. Looking good is for normal people. Wikipedia is for the Internet.
Which is why the antibiotics are serving as a placebo.
Not really. It's like the difference between yelling really really loud and wearing ear plugs.
No, it's him. Those are Simpsons references. Uh, it's from the episode where Marge somehow manages to find a Chanel suit marked down from $2800 to $90, and as a consequence is allowed to enter Springfield's classy side.
Heh heh heh. Instead of "idol," he writes "idle." Now that's humorous! Today's comedians could learn from this post.
There's no r in that wav. The phoenetic pronunciation of that word would be "debbicle" or deb-uh-kul.
Western Culture is from Mars, Islamic Extremists are from Venus?
I get what you're saying in that I am a liberal-bleeding-heart and certainly want to take into consideration the things which led the middle east to be as fucked up as it currently is, but that analogy just strikes me as being very odd.
And: I don't see how providing more information can be constrewed as censorship.
There's a very strong difference between an entrepeneur and an intellectual. An intellectual attempts to solve problems for the intellectual curiosity, whereas an entrepeneur solves problems so as to make money. Just because you are smart does not mean you are an intellectual.
You can be anti-intellectual and still appreciate entrepeneurs. An important aspect of anti-intellectualism is the belief that those eggheads should quit fucking around and get down to business. An entrepeneur (or an engineer, to a lesser degree) is a person who has gotten down to business.
A person can be anti-intellectual and still appreciate the things which intellectuals do. Similarly, people can like Spiderman and the Interweb but still wanna give geeks their respective wedgies.
"Science is like sex. Sure it gets results, but that's not why we do it." -- Richard Feynman
There's also percioception (the feeling of knowing where your body parts are in relation to each other) and really, most of the feelings of "touch" could be broken down into a few seperate senses. (Heat, standard contact, pain, etc.) The five senses that Aristotle tossed around are really not the best catagorization around, although they worked for his purposes.
Also, I'd quibble with his original comment, in that the sense isn't "time," but "memory."
My theory, which of course I pulled out of my ass and has no supporting evidence, is that Japan tends to value "society" more than the individual, relative to western countries. Thus, when a westerner is depressed, they will interpret it as the rest of the world being unfair. When a Japanese person is depressed, they will interpret it as their own personal failing.
"Straight" men can be attracted to little boys too. Children are generally more androgynous than adults, so just because you're not attracted to men doesn't mean you can't like little boys.
If you post on Slashdot, you probably don't cop a lot of snogs. Lot of wanking, though. Bloody good fun, that.
Slashdot is a "nerd" site, not a "tech" site. If you want pure tech, go to Ars Technica or whatever.
Nerds = social awkwardness + obsession in weird things + interest in science, math, and/or technology + an otherwise overintellectual attitude
This subject addresses science and social awkwardness. Also, it allows us to talk about twelve year old girls with prematurely huge breasts, which brings us to the Anime side of geekery. So this is a pretty nerdy subject, really.
Just because he doesn't have ADHD doesn't mean the man can't appreciate a cheeseburger now and then. What are you, some kind of racist?
Note that I said it was free speech in the same way libel is free speech. In other words, not the sort of free speech which courts are going to take seriously.
Speech is communication. The whole point of copyright is that if some idea is copyrighted, then you are not allowed to express it as freely as you otherwise would. Thus, copyright restricts your ability to communicate. Thus, copyright restricts your "free speech."
I agree with the spirit of your maniacal laughter, however, if not your substance. There's no way in hell that this argument has any validity from a legal standpoint, because the Copyright Act of 1790 predates the ratifaction of the First Amendment, and not once in the entire lifetime of said amendment has anyone decided that the first amendment repeals the constitutional ability of Congress to pass copyright laws, it may be considered to be established law.
However, from a more philosophically abstract point of view, the facts remain that when you pass copyright laws, you are restricting the ability of a person to say whatever the fuck they want to say. If people have a right to say whatever the fuck they want to say, then logically, people have a right to copy software.
Whether people have a right to say whatever the fuck they want to say is another question entirely, of course.
To be pedantic, Joshua Kapellen is Canadian, not American.
Best Buy offers tiered service. When you're just paying for basic service, you get a much different experience from when you're Bono. When you're Bono, they go the extra mile.
Fair enough. But at the same time, wanting to help Bono plug in his Xbox is a pretty weird life goal.
Well, yes. Copying software is ultimately just a form of speech, and therefore in principle should be considered a right. Of course, there are many other forms of speech which have been rendered illegal, (slander, espionage, "yelling fire in a crowded theater," threats, etc.) such that legally, the principle has been generally watered down to allow speech to be restricted to some degree as long as it doesn't restrict people's rights "too" much.
Kurzweil still very much thinks that the singularity will happen in 2030-ish. I imagine the author just found that a little hard to swallow, so he decided to push the year ahead himself.
Except I very explicitly proved that it is impossible. I am a huge fan of non-violent protest, but a couple people whining that they don't wanna use MSN to search the web isn't going to be enough to make China rethink their position on censorship. This is equivalent to if someone had tried to end apartheid by forcing South Africans to only drink diet cola.
Furthermore, Google is providing information, not soda. Even though they had to censor some of this information, even a little information will help foster a pro-freedom movement. The more information, the more freedom. So by censoring their material, they are helping to fight censorship.
Google is doing what they can to provide China with as much information as possible. How is this a bad thing?