You want certain things. Other have joined forces to stop you. They are stronger than you. One way to counter them is to team up with other people who aren't completely against you and bargin with them. Maybe that way you can get SOME of what you want, and position yourself for the future. If enough people DON'T do that, then your enemy will beat you.
The idea isn't to be assimilated by a force you despise, but to find ways to work with others to get your fair share of the power. Otherwise, you're left in the cold with no power at all.
Please note, I'm not just talking about Nader. This is how democracy in general works in a winner-take-all electoral system.
Re:third party could be very influential in evenl
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
> You're thinking only in terms of presidential poltics. The senate and house have a lot of power too.
No, the Congress is elected winner-take-all. It is very very difficult to run as a 3rd party candidate and win in any state, and if you are a 3rd party congress-member, you have to throw your allegience pretty completely (Jeffors).
why 3rd parties are bad
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
In other systems, if a party gets, say, 5% of the vote, they get 5% representation. That makes it appealing to start parties -- if you get 5% of the vote, you get 5% representation in parlament. In order to lead parlament, you need a majority. If no party has a majority, they need to get other parties to sign on with them. My 5% now comes in handy: I tell the Christian Democrat party that I'll support them for Prime Minister if they let me be the head of a committee of if they help to pass legislation that I support but that they are ambivelant about.
In the US, the President and Congress get elected by a winner-take-all system. This might be becuse the US was the first country to experiment with how to make elections work -- this method seemed reasonable and there were no experiments to study which election method best acheived good results in terms of the Founding Fathers' values.
In the US way, it is natural for a 2 party system to evolve. That way, any given consituent maximizes his chances of getting power. If you start your own party and get only 5% of the vote, you get nothing, exept the ability to bargin with your opponents -- to tell them you won't run again if you make room in your party for me and my ideas; they're worth 5%. The system encourages parties to disolve themselves to join forces early to win a majority.
G Washington saw that two parties were natually forming and this bugged him -- he, like may/.ers felt that each cadidate should be his own man, and fight for his own beliefs, etc. But if I and 20 other candidates do that but one of our opponents gathers many constituents together and represents them, he will win, unless we counter with our own block.
It is in this sense that Nader is a spoiler -- not because he doesn't have good ideas or because people shouldn't fight or vote for what they believe in, but becasue he is not acting in the interests of his constuents. If he were to bargin with his 5%, he'd get something done -- he could try to get Kerry to promise him Labor Secretary or to put some Nader issue on his agenda.
As it is now, he will get nothing -- no proportional representation, no Democratic appeasment, no favors. And since he isn't even acting within a party anymore, he'll get no future bargining power for the 3% he may get this time.
>>How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
Bush went into Iraq (etc) even though he couldn't get the support of allies. This, pro-Bush people claim, shows that he is brave and will do what it takes to protect the US against enemies. Bush supporters see Kerry as weak in this regard, that the geopolitical consequenses of unilateralism scare Kerry into inaction; that Kerry wouldn't've gone into Iraq, for example, because it would be too difficult. (GHW Bush left Iraq for this reason.)
On the other hand, Kerry has demonstrated, in a very personal way, that he was willing to risk life and limb to serve the US. Whether you believe the Swift Boaters for Truth or not, it's clear that Kerry 1) volunteered for combat when others in situations similar to him snuck out of combat; and 2) in combat, he did some brave things including personally kill an enemy when under extreme pressure. Bush did no such things -- he, like many richer, better educated Americans, watched out for himself. (Many who dodged opposed the war, but Bush can't even pretend to this moral stand.)
Kerry plays the card of his service record to undercut the Bush-critique. He can take risks; he is brave; he is willing to sacrifice; he can do the unpopular thing if it is the right thing. Countering this perception is also what motivates many pro-Bush people to find fault with Kerry's record.
The anti-Bush people also see Bush's military record as symbolic of Bush -- cloaking himself in patriotism, proficiency, and service, but really just participating in an elite network of self-interested men who can get what they want, even though they may be bumbling. Pro-Bush people have responded:
* Bush served as a small cog in a large wheel, like many who serve America militarily (this is what Gore said of himself)
* The pro-Kerry people are anti-National Guard by saying that Bush didn't serve enough
* The whole issue is irrelevant, because Bush changed when he became born-again and after 9/11
Current US IP laws are clearly inhibiting business innovation, cultural enjoyment, and the arts. One way to transition into a new IP paradigm is for the US to advocate Free Software as its main international software trade pollicy priority. By focusing on protecting the proprietary companies and the special laws and propaganda they need, Kerry is squandering an important way he can distinguish himself.
They are old-fashioned because they cling to solutions that are no longer promoting the arts and sciences. Nihilistic because they are eager to sacrifice all other values and long-term potentials to what they see as a leverage point in their own bottom line.
>copyright enforcement is a good thing for free software.
But if the talk and laws and international pressure is about IP protection for Apple, MS, RIAA, DVDCCA et al, and not Freedom and Openness, we're in for some muddy times.
I support John Kerry. Recently, in a bid to be more palatable to US business interests, he had Steve Jobs (and Warren Buffet) sign on with his campaign. Jobs is advising him on tech issues. The same day this was annonced, Kerry spoke about trade with China and India -- his main trade priorities there will be to curb their "software piracy."
In my mind, this is clearly a short-sighted, feeble software priority. Clearly, the US should encourage open source code throughout the world for its verifiable security, standards support, freedom of use, and, as a commodity, for it's potential to further other entrepenurial endeavors (including the arts).
Instead, Jobs advises to spend energy and moral capital on saving his nihilistic compromise with the old-fashioned IP distributors.
Apple makes good hardware. They make some good software. They make pretty graphic designs advertising these wares. But their vision for Western culture is shallow and self-serving.
> what happens when someone asks you to change the design of the page
You change the stylesheet. CSS is not trivial. You can control things BETTER than if you change HTML with formatting.
>what happens when you want to add non-html support
If you are using a template system, you could just change the template. With my system, you'd need to change the PHP. BUT, with my system, you could just make alternate stylesheets to make the page good for PDAs or for print, etc.
Also, my system could arguably be ported to another programming language with HTML output more easily than yours. I'd just have to re-write the logic/structure document to output the same divs. But you'd need to create an entire structure to support your templating system.
>for anything with anyuse you should use templates.
PHP templates separate logic from structure. HTML + CSS separates structure from presentation.
I write php and for any relevantly grouped output, I surround it in html div tags. I use a lot of div tags. E.g., to deal with a list of links with descriptions, the entire list is enclosed in a div, each link plus it's description has it's own div, each link has it's own div, and each description has it's own div.
I keep a list of the classes/ids of the divs. I heavily organize the code so that every element can easily be referred to by a class or id according to a heavily commented list of selectors.
The PHP file is all structure/programming logic. I put all content in some sort of database.
Then I write cascading style sheets. You'd be amazed at how many different ways you can make the page look. And not just different colors/font sizes; you can make a sidebar float left or right, or be across the top; you can make links' subsections unfold, or stay invisible until you're in that section; in short, you can make the page be layed-out however you want.
(A few caveats: I've found, in making the css cross-browser compatible, that sometimes you need to do a few work-arounds that pollute the structured PHP document, things like: make a extra div around a div; maybe use a conditional statement to show an INPUT or a BUTTON tag. But you usually need to pollute your non-css HTML anyway if you want to do some sort of tricky design that is cross-browser compatibile and that degrades gracefully.)
For me, a separate PHP template engine means that the template itself will be polluted: you'll have HTML that's trying to do design, instead of just describing the page's structure. And of course, the template page will need some programming logic like loops and conditionals.
Better for your designers learn css than make them deal with some half-assed half-HTML, half-PHP template.
1) With PHP templates -- * programming logic in php files * content in a database * structure/design in template
2) With no templates but using css -- * programming logic & document structure in PHP files * content in database * design in css
Most buzzwords have a real meaning: even "synergy":)... Sometimes though, marketing people use these words not to convey their meaning, but to try to create the illusion that they are talking about something that would be met with approval by someone who did know what they were talking about, when in fact, they themselves don't know what they mean to say.
If it wasn't for big business paying the bills, there would be no software industry
But Free software was emphatically not paid for by big business. In the same way, one could claim that "the best Literature was not paid for by big business."
I didn't like how MS tried to appeal to me as an Open Source user/programmer. To a Linux enthusiast, it's not enough to say "It's faster." You have to say WHY it's faster. And if you say why it's faster, you have to let me ask even more questions. But at some point in this back-and-forth discussion, MS will say "I will not answer that question. It would not be in MS's interest." Oh.
Sure, you are your Grannie are content to say "It's faster, therefore better, I don't care about the openness." But I'm a Linux enthusiast, and I want to discuss the coding possibilities, and I don't want to be limited by your company's bottom line.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but as far as I can tell there is no licensing problem here. If someone builds a proprietary program on top of the LGPLed GTK+, they wouldn't be linking with the libqtgtk thing. As of now the documentation says you's have to explicitly change your source code to get the KDE integration, but I heard that they've made it so this isn't needed, that it's GPLed code that intercepts certain GTK+ calls.
Corporate technology companies have portrayed the computer as being driven by companies. Linux development has been driven by hackers. At Linux World, the corporations put their accomplishments and offerings front and center, but they still somehow get dwarfed by the independent developers, who are more creative, more excited, more genuine, and more fun. I have no problem with businesses making money, touting their wares, and spinning their services. But they are the less interesting side of the story, a predictable sideshow.
I only occasionally use XP on my old laptop, and I'm always shocked at how inconsistant everything is, how every app and website tries to wrest control over my system with its own, non-standard styles. From skined media players to full-screen, popped-up, Flash websites; from ever new MSOffice widgets to tray-launched applets; weirdly-named, unknown processes running in task-manager; never knowing how to stop an automaticly launched program (service? registry? auto-exec bat?). In fact, half the time I can't tell if I'm shutting a program off or just "hiding" it. Programs are always trying to grab MIME types and not give them back; wizards are always starting suddenly and won't quit; I have a hard time telling when and where (or if!) I've unzipped a file! I have to click, hover, clcik, hove, search, hover, and start again just to open Notepad, and it has NEVER smartly figured out that it is one of my most used apps. When my wife uses the laptop she always ends up with a million bizzarre windows all over, little apps launched, tons of stuff frozen...
In a word: Windows has NO consistancy at all! And it really fucks up my productivity.
A lot of people are giving as examples attacks against Jews, Women, and blacks, claiming that PC stuff prevents a rational discussion of the shortcomings of these groups when it comes to specific historical events, social observations, and nasty language.
More to the point though, is that it is NOT ALLOWED to espouse the idea that, say, a particular group is bad NOT because of some rational, fact-based argument (with URLs to back up your points), but because RACISM or SEXISM or anti-SEMITISM have non-rational, but correct groundings.
For example, you won't see the following entertained:
"Blacks are vile, sickening, lothesome sub-humans who must be destroyed. Why? Because of their sub-humanness. How will I prove this to be the correct perscription? By a political movement that will prevail. The fact that I will win is what will prove me right."
This is how the facists argued, and you don't see it much today. Instead, people give reasons for hating Jews: they trick us (examples), they oppress (examples); they have done this or that in the past. In other words, normal explanations based on the social sciences, quoting figures, citing books and newspaper articles, with genetic theories, etc.
It is really a question of the BASIS of values. When someone does argue like this, it is scary, because there is little for room for discussion, even if you wanted to try to rebut them. The underlying violence of their claims also makes what they are saying feel scary.
If a child curses without knowing what they do, they may potentially dillute the curse words' special, magical powers. The magical power of a curse word is that it is a word that isn't supposed to be spoken, so that when it is spoken, it creates the effect of breaking a rule. When used effecively, this can add a tremendous amount of energy to a protest; can really seriously hurt feelings in an insult; can add a ton of sexuality to a situation; and can create fear and a sense of further violation of social rules.
* FUCK the Repubican party and their BULLSHIT!
* You're a bitch-ass, girly FAGGOT is what you are...
* I want to fuck your little pussy...
* You stupid, worthless, fuck-hole, CUNT...!
Part of the power of language comes from this, the ability to simply express, and act out, transgression.
I want an app where you can write a screenplay and choose from a list of predetermined actions and actors, or create your own, and have the whole thing rendered out in at least pretty good CG. The actors and actresses could be thinly veiled versions of famous actors.
You'd choose from drop-downs:
Scene: Exterior; City Street; Bad neighborhood; Crowded; Night; Drizzling rain
Actors: #1: 40s Italian American wise guy; #2: 30s African American smart aleck (here, you'd flip through characters and choose associated voices, clothes)
Mood: Fast tempo; Mysterious
Music: Mysterious
Cameras: Over the shoulder of #1; Dolly back (here, you'd manipulate a bird's eye schematic)
Actions: #1 stands on corner; White Volvo pulls up; # gets out of drivers seat, walks to #1; #1 gives #2 a black breifcase
Dialog: #1: What took you so long? #2: Sorry, man, my woman kept me late... #1: You better ditch that woman if she makes you late like this... #2 I know man, I'll do better...
Then you'd click RENDER and, after a while, get a good MPEG2.
Joy: Being able to listen to any of my songs the second it occurs to me Sorrow: having to "authorize" myself to listen to music that I love
Joy: sharing my favorite songs with my friends Sorrow: Having to spend hrs giving friends tech support dealing with work arounds to stupid DRM measures that make them feel lost
Joy: finding new music that I love Sorrow: fearing getting busted for checking out someone's recomendation
Hey RIAA, how about I offer you amnesty for being a historic scourge on civilization? Yeild now and we'll write the history books "The RIAA saw that technology had the potential to let anyone in the world listen to any audio that was ever recorded... They conceeded that this major boon to humanity far outweighed the convoluted legalism and propoganda they spewed in order to reap in unearned cash..."
Slashdot Mirror
I ripped these older Presidential debates from various websites. It was a pain to get them. Dowload the torrent here or here or here
Low quality Real Video files ripped from streamings from the web.
If you have other debates, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, Presidential and/or VP, or higher-quality of the above, PLEASE POST!
You want certain things. Other have joined forces to stop you. They are stronger than you. One way to counter them is to team up with other people who aren't completely against you and bargin with them. Maybe that way you can get SOME of what you want, and position yourself for the future. If enough people DON'T do that, then your enemy will beat you.
The idea isn't to be assimilated by a force you despise, but to find ways to work with others to get your fair share of the power. Otherwise, you're left in the cold with no power at all.
Please note, I'm not just talking about Nader. This is how democracy in general works in a winner-take-all electoral system.
> You're thinking only in terms of presidential poltics. The senate and house have a lot of power too.
No, the Congress is elected winner-take-all. It is very very difficult to run as a 3rd party candidate and win in any state, and if you are a 3rd party congress-member, you have to throw your allegience pretty completely (Jeffors).
In other systems, if a party gets, say, 5% of the vote, they get 5% representation. That makes it appealing to start parties -- if you get 5% of the vote, you get 5% representation in parlament. In order to lead parlament, you need a majority. If no party has a majority, they need to get other parties to sign on with them. My 5% now comes in handy: I tell the Christian Democrat party that I'll support them for Prime Minister if they let me be the head of a committee of if they help to pass legislation that I support but that they are ambivelant about.
/.ers felt that each cadidate should be his own man, and fight for his own beliefs, etc. But if I and 20 other candidates do that but one of our opponents gathers many constituents together and represents them, he will win, unless we counter with our own block.
In the US, the President and Congress get elected by a winner-take-all system. This might be becuse the US was the first country to experiment with how to make elections work -- this method seemed reasonable and there were no experiments to study which election method best acheived good results in terms of the Founding Fathers' values.
In the US way, it is natural for a 2 party system to evolve. That way, any given consituent maximizes his chances of getting power. If you start your own party and get only 5% of the vote, you get nothing, exept the ability to bargin with your opponents -- to tell them you won't run again if you make room in your party for me and my ideas; they're worth 5%. The system encourages parties to disolve themselves to join forces early to win a majority.
G Washington saw that two parties were natually forming and this bugged him -- he, like may
It is in this sense that Nader is a spoiler -- not because he doesn't have good ideas or because people shouldn't fight or vote for what they believe in, but becasue he is not acting in the interests of his constuents. If he were to bargin with his 5%, he'd get something done -- he could try to get Kerry to promise him Labor Secretary or to put some Nader issue on his agenda.
As it is now, he will get nothing -- no proportional representation, no Democratic appeasment, no favors. And since he isn't even acting within a party anymore, he'll get no future bargining power for the 3% he may get this time.
>>How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
.)
Bush went into Iraq (etc) even though he couldn't get the support of allies. This, pro-Bush people claim, shows that he is brave and will do what it takes to protect the US against enemies. Bush supporters see Kerry as weak in this regard, that the geopolitical consequenses of unilateralism scare Kerry into inaction; that Kerry wouldn't've gone into Iraq, for example, because it would be too difficult. (GHW Bush left Iraq for this reason
On the other hand, Kerry has demonstrated, in a very personal way, that he was willing to risk life and limb to serve the US. Whether you believe the Swift Boaters for Truth or not, it's clear that Kerry 1) volunteered for combat when others in situations similar to him snuck out of combat; and 2) in combat, he did some brave things including personally kill an enemy when under extreme pressure. Bush did no such things -- he, like many richer, better educated Americans, watched out for himself. (Many who dodged opposed the war, but Bush can't even pretend to this moral stand.)
Kerry plays the card of his service record to undercut the Bush-critique. He can take risks; he is brave; he is willing to sacrifice; he can do the unpopular thing if it is the right thing. Countering this perception is also what motivates many pro-Bush people to find fault with Kerry's record.
The anti-Bush people also see Bush's military record as symbolic of Bush -- cloaking himself in patriotism, proficiency, and service, but really just participating in an elite network of self-interested men who can get what they want, even though they may be bumbling. Pro-Bush people have responded:
* Bush served as a small cog in a large wheel, like many who serve America militarily (this is what Gore said of himself)
* The pro-Kerry people are anti-National Guard by saying that Bush didn't serve enough
* The whole issue is irrelevant, because Bush changed when he became born-again and after 9/11
is this a feature or a bug?
The SCO/BayStar/RBC deal going bad is like...
When Stalin's and Hitler's alliance collapsed.
Current US IP laws are clearly inhibiting business innovation, cultural enjoyment, and the arts. One way to transition into a new IP paradigm is for the US to advocate Free Software as its main international software trade pollicy priority. By focusing on protecting the proprietary companies and the special laws and propaganda they need, Kerry is squandering an important way he can distinguish himself.
They are old-fashioned because they cling to solutions that are no longer promoting the arts and sciences. Nihilistic because they are eager to sacrifice all other values and long-term potentials to what they see as a leverage point in their own bottom line.
>copyright enforcement is a good thing for free software.
But if the talk and laws and international pressure is about IP protection for Apple, MS, RIAA, DVDCCA et al, and not Freedom and Openness, we're in for some muddy times.
I support John Kerry. Recently, in a bid to be more palatable to US business interests, he had Steve Jobs (and Warren Buffet) sign on with his campaign. Jobs is advising him on tech issues. The same day this was annonced, Kerry spoke about trade with China and India -- his main trade priorities there will be to curb their "software piracy."
In my mind, this is clearly a short-sighted, feeble software priority. Clearly, the US should encourage open source code throughout the world for its verifiable security, standards support, freedom of use, and, as a commodity, for it's potential to further other entrepenurial endeavors (including the arts).
Instead, Jobs advises to spend energy and moral capital on saving his nihilistic compromise with the old-fashioned IP distributors.
Apple makes good hardware. They make some good software. They make pretty graphic designs advertising these wares. But their vision for Western culture is shallow and self-serving.
> what happens when someone asks you to change the design of the page
You change the stylesheet. CSS is not trivial. You can control things BETTER than if you change HTML with formatting.
>what happens when you want to add non-html support
If you are using a template system, you could just change the template. With my system, you'd need to change the PHP. BUT, with my system, you could just make alternate stylesheets to make the page good for PDAs or for print, etc.
Also, my system could arguably be ported to another programming language with HTML output more easily than yours. I'd just have to re-write the logic/structure document to output the same divs. But you'd need to create an entire structure to support your templating system.
>for anything with anyuse you should use templates.
PHP templates separate logic from structure. HTML + CSS separates structure from presentation.
I write php and for any relevantly grouped output, I surround it in html div tags. I use a lot of div tags. E.g., to deal with a list of links with descriptions, the entire list is enclosed in a div, each link plus it's description has it's own div, each link has it's own div, and each description has it's own div.
I keep a list of the classes/ids of the divs. I heavily organize the code so that every element can easily be referred to by a class or id according to a heavily commented list of selectors.
The PHP file is all structure/programming logic. I put all content in some sort of database.
Then I write cascading style sheets. You'd be amazed at how many different ways you can make the page look. And not just different colors/font sizes; you can make a sidebar float left or right, or be across the top; you can make links' subsections unfold, or stay invisible until you're in that section; in short, you can make the page be layed-out however you want.
(A few caveats: I've found, in making the css cross-browser compatible, that sometimes you need to do a few work-arounds that pollute the structured PHP document, things like: make a extra div around a div; maybe use a conditional statement to show an INPUT or a BUTTON tag. But you usually need to pollute your non-css HTML anyway if you want to do some sort of tricky design that is cross-browser compatibile and that degrades gracefully.)
For me, a separate PHP template engine means that the template itself will be polluted: you'll have HTML that's trying to do design, instead of just describing the page's structure. And of course, the template page will need some programming logic like loops and conditionals.
Better for your designers learn css than make them deal with some half-assed half-HTML, half-PHP template.
1) With PHP templates
--
* programming logic in php files
* content in a database
* structure/design in template
2) With no templates but using css
--
* programming logic & document structure in PHP files
* content in database
* design in css
Two is cleaner, no?
Most buzzwords have a real meaning: even "synergy" :) ... Sometimes though, marketing people use these words not to convey their meaning, but to try to create the illusion that they are talking about something that would be met with approval by someone who did know what they were talking about, when in fact, they themselves don't know what they mean to say.
If it wasn't for big business paying the bills, there would be no software industry
But Free software was emphatically not paid for by big business. In the same way, one could claim that "the best Literature was not paid for by big business."
I didn't like how MS tried to appeal to me as an Open Source user/programmer. To a Linux enthusiast, it's not enough to say "It's faster." You have to say WHY it's faster. And if you say why it's faster, you have to let me ask even more questions. But at some point in this back-and-forth discussion, MS will say "I will not answer that question. It would not be in MS's interest." Oh.
Sure, you are your Grannie are content to say "It's faster, therefore better, I don't care about the openness." But I'm a Linux enthusiast, and I want to discuss the coding possibilities, and I don't want to be limited by your company's bottom line.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but as far as I can tell there is no licensing problem here. If someone builds a proprietary program on top of the LGPLed GTK+, they wouldn't be linking with the libqtgtk thing. As of now the documentation says you's have to explicitly change your source code to get the KDE integration, but I heard that they've made it so this isn't needed, that it's GPLed code that intercepts certain GTK+ calls.
Corporate technology companies have portrayed the computer as being driven by companies. Linux development has been driven by hackers. At Linux World, the corporations put their accomplishments and offerings front and center, but they still somehow get dwarfed by the independent developers, who are more creative, more excited, more genuine, and more fun. I have no problem with businesses making money, touting their wares, and spinning their services. But they are the less interesting side of the story, a predictable sideshow.
Just when I was ready to try linux again, I read this paragraph and remembered why I got rid of it last time.
To be fair, this was developer software under development, not something for your average desktop user. Here's more info.
I only occasionally use XP on my old laptop, and I'm always shocked at how inconsistant everything is, how every app and website tries to wrest control over my system with its own, non-standard styles. From skined media players to full-screen, popped-up, Flash websites; from ever new MSOffice widgets to tray-launched applets; weirdly-named, unknown processes running in task-manager; never knowing how to stop an automaticly launched program (service? registry? auto-exec bat?). In fact, half the time I can't tell if I'm shutting a program off or just "hiding" it. Programs are always trying to grab MIME types and not give them back; wizards are always starting suddenly and won't quit; I have a hard time telling when and where (or if!) I've unzipped a file! I have to click, hover, clcik, hove, search, hover, and start again just to open Notepad, and it has NEVER smartly figured out that it is one of my most used apps. When my wife uses the laptop she always ends up with a million bizzarre windows all over, little apps launched, tons of stuff frozen...
In a word: Windows has NO consistancy at all! And it really fucks up my productivity.
A lot of people are giving as examples attacks against Jews, Women, and blacks, claiming that PC stuff prevents a rational discussion of the shortcomings of these groups when it comes to specific historical events, social observations, and nasty language.
More to the point though, is that it is NOT ALLOWED to espouse the idea that, say, a particular group is bad NOT because of some rational, fact-based argument (with URLs to back up your points), but because RACISM or SEXISM or anti-SEMITISM have non-rational, but correct groundings.
For example, you won't see the following entertained:
"Blacks are vile, sickening, lothesome sub-humans who must be destroyed. Why? Because of their sub-humanness. How will I prove this to be the correct perscription? By a political movement that will prevail. The fact that I will win is what will prove me right."
This is how the facists argued, and you don't see it much today. Instead, people give reasons for hating Jews: they trick us (examples), they oppress (examples); they have done this or that in the past. In other words, normal explanations based on the social sciences, quoting figures, citing books and newspaper articles, with genetic theories, etc.
It is really a question of the BASIS of values. When someone does argue like this, it is scary, because there is little for room for discussion, even if you wanted to try to rebut them. The underlying violence of their claims also makes what they are saying feel scary.
If a child curses without knowing what they do, they may potentially dillute the curse words' special, magical powers. The magical power of a curse word is that it is a word that isn't supposed to be spoken, so that when it is spoken, it creates the effect of breaking a rule. When used effecively, this can add a tremendous amount of energy to a protest; can really seriously hurt feelings in an insult; can add a ton of sexuality to a situation; and can create fear and a sense of further violation of social rules.
* FUCK the Repubican party and their BULLSHIT!
* You're a bitch-ass, girly FAGGOT is what you are...
* I want to fuck your little pussy...
* You stupid, worthless, fuck-hole, CUNT...!
Part of the power of language comes from this, the ability to simply express, and act out, transgression.
I want an app where you can write a screenplay and choose from a list of predetermined actions and actors, or create your own, and have the whole thing rendered out in at least pretty good CG. The actors and actresses could be thinly veiled versions of famous actors.
You'd choose from drop-downs:
Scene: Exterior; City Street; Bad neighborhood; Crowded; Night; Drizzling rain
Actors: #1: 40s Italian American wise guy; #2: 30s African American smart aleck (here, you'd flip through characters and choose associated voices, clothes)
Mood: Fast tempo; Mysterious
Music: Mysterious
Cameras: Over the shoulder of #1; Dolly back (here, you'd manipulate a bird's eye schematic)
Actions: #1 stands on corner; White Volvo pulls up; # gets out of drivers seat, walks to #1; #1 gives #2 a black breifcase
Dialog:
#1: What took you so long?
#2: Sorry, man, my woman kept me late...
#1: You better ditch that woman if she makes you late like this...
#2 I know man, I'll do better...
Then you'd click RENDER and, after a while, get a good MPEG2.
My 2 cents.
We might be "facing the physical limits," but not the METAphysical limits.
Joy: Being able to listen to any of my songs the second it occurs to me
Sorrow: having to "authorize" myself to listen to music that I love
Joy: sharing my favorite songs with my friends
Sorrow: Having to spend hrs giving friends tech support dealing with work arounds to stupid DRM measures that make them feel lost
Joy: finding new music that I love
Sorrow: fearing getting busted for checking out someone's recomendation
Joy: art, technology, freedom
Sorrow: greedy fuckers; the constant vigilance freedom requires
Joy: Cracking the shit out of IP
Sorrow: It's come to this: having to justify it to the stupid Slashdot consumers
Would that make AOL liable for all Gnutella downloads?
Hey RIAA, how about I offer you amnesty for being a historic scourge on civilization? Yeild now and we'll write the history books "The RIAA saw that technology had the potential to let anyone in the world listen to any audio that was ever recorded... They conceeded that this major boon to humanity far outweighed the convoluted legalism and propoganda they spewed in order to reap in unearned cash..."