Speaking in pure economics terms, the person who is smoking is imposing an externality on those who are around them. That's the concern- everyone who is sharing air with the smoker is *forced* to inhale air-contaminated smoke. The problem is not that the smoker is of the opinion that they like to smoke. The problem is that the smoker's actions affect a third party (the others in the room) that neither consented nor gained from the transaction.
I oppose having governments get involved, but I don't think people should smoke indoors and if I had a restaurant I would have a "no smoking" rule.
You know, there was a day when a very large percentage of readers posted AC. I know I probably did for on the order of a year before I finally registered.
Well, yes and no. Darwin has a mach-based "microkernel" but there's only one thread running under it - the FreeBSD kernel. So while the VM was supplied by Mach, the entire process model, network stack, filesystem code, and system calls all came from FreeBSD. The suite of userland tools that came with Darwin were all also from FreeBSD.
They are, or at least were- I'm not sure how actively they merged things, but if the OP is right then they've kept up- very closely related.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered astronomy community when slashdot confirmed that Copernicus, in fact, is dead.
You don't have to be a Galileo to predict astronomy's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Astronomy faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for astronomy because Astronomy is Dying.
Astronomers are the most endangered of them all, with over 90% of all great astronomers dead. There can no longer be any doubt: Astronomy is Dying.
problem is, most irc channels these days are full of kids that demand attention and instant help, as well as ops and regulars with overgrown egos and a distaste for even helping people who came to the channel after much research on their questions.
As a regular IRC user since 1997, I can assure you:
"These days" have lasted for, at the very least, 8 years.
What I have seen, however, is the end of EFNet as a useful network for folks looking to get work done. Most of us who are using IRC for important things have wandered off to our various niche networks.
If you're serious, then it's probably because people have pulled the satfeed via C-band. Sat time is cheaper during off-peak hours, so for most networks they'll just throw up a program at night and affiliates will tape it and air it at the scheduled time.
For many networks, especially free over the air networks, these feeds get sent "in the clear" - anyone with a BUD (big ugly dish) in their backyard can get the feed of the show, complete with slate and all. Combine that with a capture device and mencoder, and a show can hit bittorrent before it airs in any market.
I think it's justified. Maybe when Chevron and other American companies aren't supporting a crooked and oppressive government because the government allows them to exploit Nigeria's oil wealth, and maybe when Nigeria's people get to have control over their political existance and get to use their oil to rise up out of poverty, maybe then it won't be justified...
Until that day, it's Americans (and I am a natural born US citizen) reaping what their government and corporations have sowed. Do I feel sorry for the victims? You sure bet: I just acknoweldge that most of them are Nigerian.
Money is a physical item for you? What, are you physically sending cash to Nigeria?
I don't know about you, but over here this 'money' thing is just a bunch of ones and zeros in my bank's computer.
Wal-Mart has not mentioned trademarks to date, nor have they sued me. They're using the DMCA, yet my case has strong arguments against copyright infringement based on fair use.
Wal-Mart, so far, hasn't said anything at all about trademarks. The cease and desist sent to my ISP was a DMCA takedown notice, and was about copyrights. Haven't heard anything about trademarks yet. Use of copyrighted material- what they went after me for- is protected as 'fair use' for parody site, in my opinion (and also the opinions of some of the lawyers I have been in contact with).
The Labor Bingo Game was actually the inspiration to build the entire site. It was in the site- and prominently advertised on the front page- that was threatened by the DMCA.
Just clarifying, in case anyone thought I added that after the takedown notice.
Clearly you've never visited my site. Unless you're suggesting you just looked at the pretty pictures, and didn't bother to read it.
The text was flamingly obvious. I said things like (paraphrasing) "we're just undoing a very small portion of the damage we do to communities, because it promotes our image and is a great write-off."
I disgree- and in the interest of full disclosure, it's my website.
The graphics are, granted, the hardest part to prove 'fair use' for, but there is still a fair use case to be made. That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the lawyers I have been in contact with.
The graphics are not being distributed by themselves as such, rather, they are part of the website which is a larger work, and in my view, markedly different from the original. That makes it a derivative work, and as such, protected as 'fair use'.
There is a lot of mistaken applications of other types of copyright law here. The big difference is I stand to make no financial gain, directly or indirectly, from this site. I don't owe royalties because I don't have profit. I don't need permission because it's fair use.
So what's the libertarian position for when two radio stations want to broadcast on the same frequency?
I mean, I'm an anarchist, but I do understand that the people should have some collective control over things that are in the commons, such as spectrum allocation. I'd agree that the FCC isn't a just manifestitation of the will of the affected people, but the principle N8F8 raised is correct- communities should be empowered to choose who can broadcast, because spectrum allocation creates a natural monopoly.
However, because of the unjust nature of the FCC, and even the facts of the case according to FCC guidelines, I side with Stern in this case.
Really, FAIR is not the reason for my thesis, they merely provide convienent and timely evidence for it.
Would you like some other proof that no US media offers a leftist perspective? What US media sources rose in protest when the US armed forces were killing journalists in Iraq? In Spain, all journalists had a one-day boycott of government news (turned their backs to the President's press conference and layed their cameras and notebooks on the ground) after the spate of Army killing non-embedded journalists. In the US, you have people like Ann Garrells of NPR, who said that Tariq Ayyub "should have known better."
What US media has questioned whether the attack on the USS Cole is terrorism? What US media has questioned whether the attack on the Pentagon is terrorism? Neither fits the definition of terrorism under US Law, which requires that the target be civilian in nature.
What US media pointed out what people like Scott Ritter have been saying for years about Iraq? What US media, in 1991, pointed out that Saddam was willing to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for an Israeli withdrawl from Lebanon and the Occupied Territories? I mean, that was an attempt at diplomacy, and we undercut it with a war. Yet the media doesn't portray it that way, they portray it as our President "standing firm."
Have you read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky? Check it out- or the documentary if you're pressed for time. It is simply impossible to argue with his institutional analysis, and he has very striking evidence- of course, it's all very old now, but it's still real. Most famous is his comparison of coverage of Cambodia versus East Timor.
If the Democrats and Republicans do not reflect the center of American politics, how do you explain both of them getting roughly half of the votes? That's sort of proof that they represent the American center, is it not?
From where I'm sitting, the democrats and republicans are both right wing.
If you want to know about what the media actually does, check out a documentary like "Independent Media In a Time Of War" (feat. Amy Goodman). It's filled with facts like this one, from FAIR:
A report about the war coverage reveals that "Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."
The five companies, for the record, are NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and AOL TimeWarner- between them, 90% of the television news audience.
NewsCorp is easy to show (see: Fox), for Disney, take a look at the whole Eisner/Farhenheit 9-11 story, for Viacom, check out MTV refusing to air paid spots against the war, for General Electric- well, General Electric is a major arms manufacturer, so I shouldn't need to go any further than that- and for AOL TimeWarner and to reinforce all of the above, well, there's the FAIR source I already cited.
Then there's radio, where you have ClearChannel hosting pro-war rallies, and pressuring its stations not to air anti-war songs.
The reason why Republicans may get confused when I say the media is right-wing is because they assume that the Democrats are left wing. It's an unfortunate reality that both Republicans and Democrats are centrists, and the center of participating Americans is far to the right.
This would have been cool, but since ClearChannel and Infinity bought up all of the stations, I swear, turning in any given radio station is like listening to a time-shifted version of any other radio station on the dial.
Wake me up next time there's diversity on the dial, and I'll get one of these.
Getting your positions and ideas heard by tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people is hardly "nothing."
Given how the media or the populace isn't critically analyzing anything of value, if someone wants to run a campaign (note: it seems neither Bush nor Kerry does) to force important issues onto the agenda of civil discourse, more power to them.
You don't have to win the election to win in the end.
It's funny, because while it's good you didn't misclassify a viral infection as bacterial, you've just contributed to the misclassification of colds as influenza.
You're ignoring the substance of my position and attacking an issue I consider entirely irrelevant.
You're arguing with the right. Get used to it.
You hit it head on nail- it's better we all spend time discussing things that don't matter, like a war 30 years ago, than discussing things that do matter, like what's going on now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, or with the FTAA...
"Liberal bias" is actually rather correct, but only when you define Liberals = democrats. The true left is not with the democrats, and the media is not with them. DN! and Indymedia (of which I am a proud volunteer of the latter) are the only sources that allow leftists to be heard, and how many listeners/readers do they get? Not enough.
actually, I don't think you've ever read the washington post, otherwise you'd know that the majority of its news is economic and political, straight facts, not editorial.
Selection of what facts constitutes "news" is an inherently editorial decision. What is "news?"
Are the thousands of people who die every day news? What about a poor woman getting abducted (in contrast to the Petersons and whatnot)? Who decides?
Don't say it isn't "what's unusual" because it's usual for the stock market to go up or down a bit every day, yet that still gets covered. But AIDS victims dying (some days more, other days less) every day- is that news? No? Who says so? And Michael Jackson IS news?
How many people in the US, versus the rest of the Americas, know what the FTAA is? That in and of itself proves there's a problem with the media expressing bias in what stories they choose to represent as news.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking in pure economics terms, the person who is smoking is imposing an externality on those who are around them. That's the concern- everyone who is sharing air with the smoker is *forced* to inhale air-contaminated smoke. The problem is not that the smoker is of the opinion that they like to smoke. The problem is that the smoker's actions affect a third party (the others in the room) that neither consented nor gained from the transaction. I oppose having governments get involved, but I don't think people should smoke indoors and if I had a restaurant I would have a "no smoking" rule.
You know, there was a day when a very large percentage of readers posted AC. I know I probably did for on the order of a year before I finally registered.
Well, yes and no. Darwin has a mach-based "microkernel" but there's only one thread running under it - the FreeBSD kernel. So while the VM was supplied by Mach, the entire process model, network stack, filesystem code, and system calls all came from FreeBSD. The suite of userland tools that came with Darwin were all also from FreeBSD. They are, or at least were- I'm not sure how actively they merged things, but if the OP is right then they've kept up- very closely related.
You don't have to be a Galileo to predict astronomy's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Astronomy faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for astronomy because Astronomy is Dying.
Astronomers are the most endangered of them all, with over 90% of all great astronomers dead. There can no longer be any doubt: Astronomy is Dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
As a regular IRC user since 1997, I can assure you:
"These days" have lasted for, at the very least, 8 years.
What I have seen, however, is the end of EFNet as a useful network for folks looking to get work done. Most of us who are using IRC for important things have wandered off to our various niche networks.
If you're serious, then it's probably because people have pulled the satfeed via C-band. Sat time is cheaper during off-peak hours, so for most networks they'll just throw up a program at night and affiliates will tape it and air it at the scheduled time.
For many networks, especially free over the air networks, these feeds get sent "in the clear" - anyone with a BUD (big ugly dish) in their backyard can get the feed of the show, complete with slate and all. Combine that with a capture device and mencoder, and a show can hit bittorrent before it airs in any market.
No, it really doesn't beg the question.
http://skepdic.com/begging.html
Until that day, it's Americans (and I am a natural born US citizen) reaping what their government and corporations have sowed. Do I feel sorry for the victims? You sure bet: I just acknoweldge that most of them are Nigerian.
Money is a physical item for you? What, are you physically sending cash to Nigeria? I don't know about you, but over here this 'money' thing is just a bunch of ones and zeros in my bank's computer.
I'm currently evaluating all of my options.
Wal-Mart has not mentioned trademarks to date, nor have they sued me. They're using the DMCA, yet my case has strong arguments against copyright infringement based on fair use.
Wal-Mart, so far, hasn't said anything at all about trademarks. The cease and desist sent to my ISP was a DMCA takedown notice, and was about copyrights. Haven't heard anything about trademarks yet. Use of copyrighted material- what they went after me for- is protected as 'fair use' for parody site, in my opinion (and also the opinions of some of the lawyers I have been in contact with).
Just clarifying, in case anyone thought I added that after the takedown notice.
The text was flamingly obvious. I said things like (paraphrasing) "we're just undoing a very small portion of the damage we do to communities, because it promotes our image and is a great write-off."
The graphics are, granted, the hardest part to prove 'fair use' for, but there is still a fair use case to be made. That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the lawyers I have been in contact with.
The graphics are not being distributed by themselves as such, rather, they are part of the website which is a larger work, and in my view, markedly different from the original. That makes it a derivative work, and as such, protected as 'fair use'.
There is a lot of mistaken applications of other types of copyright law here. The big difference is I stand to make no financial gain, directly or indirectly, from this site. I don't owe royalties because I don't have profit. I don't need permission because it's fair use.
So what's the libertarian position for when two radio stations want to broadcast on the same frequency?
I mean, I'm an anarchist, but I do understand that the people should have some collective control over things that are in the commons, such as spectrum allocation. I'd agree that the FCC isn't a just manifestitation of the will of the affected people, but the principle N8F8 raised is correct- communities should be empowered to choose who can broadcast, because spectrum allocation creates a natural monopoly.
However, because of the unjust nature of the FCC, and even the facts of the case according to FCC guidelines, I side with Stern in this case.
Really, FAIR is not the reason for my thesis, they merely provide convienent and timely evidence for it.
Would you like some other proof that no US media offers a leftist perspective? What US media sources rose in protest when the US armed forces were killing journalists in Iraq? In Spain, all journalists had a one-day boycott of government news (turned their backs to the President's press conference and layed their cameras and notebooks on the ground) after the spate of Army killing non-embedded journalists. In the US, you have people like Ann Garrells of NPR, who said that Tariq Ayyub "should have known better."
What US media has questioned whether the attack on the USS Cole is terrorism? What US media has questioned whether the attack on the Pentagon is terrorism? Neither fits the definition of terrorism under US Law, which requires that the target be civilian in nature.
What US media pointed out what people like Scott Ritter have been saying for years about Iraq? What US media, in 1991, pointed out that Saddam was willing to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for an Israeli withdrawl from Lebanon and the Occupied Territories? I mean, that was an attempt at diplomacy, and we undercut it with a war. Yet the media doesn't portray it that way, they portray it as our President "standing firm."
Have you read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky? Check it out- or the documentary if you're pressed for time. It is simply impossible to argue with his institutional analysis, and he has very striking evidence- of course, it's all very old now, but it's still real. Most famous is his comparison of coverage of Cambodia versus East Timor.
If the Democrats and Republicans do not reflect the center of American politics, how do you explain both of them getting roughly half of the votes? That's sort of proof that they represent the American center, is it not?
Not really, considering he's done it. See the case of Sherman Austin.
If you want to know about what the media actually does, check out a documentary like "Independent Media In a Time Of War" (feat. Amy Goodman). It's filled with facts like this one, from FAIR:
A report about the war coverage reveals that "Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."
The five companies, for the record, are NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and AOL TimeWarner- between them, 90% of the television news audience.
NewsCorp is easy to show (see: Fox), for Disney, take a look at the whole Eisner/Farhenheit 9-11 story, for Viacom, check out MTV refusing to air paid spots against the war, for General Electric- well, General Electric is a major arms manufacturer, so I shouldn't need to go any further than that- and for AOL TimeWarner and to reinforce all of the above, well, there's the FAIR source I already cited.
Then there's radio, where you have ClearChannel hosting pro-war rallies, and pressuring its stations not to air anti-war songs.
The reason why Republicans may get confused when I say the media is right-wing is because they assume that the Democrats are left wing. It's an unfortunate reality that both Republicans and Democrats are centrists, and the center of participating Americans is far to the right.
This would have been cool, but since ClearChannel and Infinity bought up all of the stations, I swear, turning in any given radio station is like listening to a time-shifted version of any other radio station on the dial.
Wake me up next time there's diversity on the dial, and I'll get one of these.
Getting your positions and ideas heard by tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people is hardly "nothing."
Given how the media or the populace isn't critically analyzing anything of value, if someone wants to run a campaign (note: it seems neither Bush nor Kerry does) to force important issues onto the agenda of civil discourse, more power to them.
You don't have to win the election to win in the end.
It's funny, because while it's good you didn't misclassify a viral infection as bacterial, you've just contributed to the misclassification of colds as influenza.
e l_id=133&menu_item_id=128&which=3
For info on telling flus from colds:
http://chealth.canoe.ca/flu/information.asp?chann
You're ignoring the substance of my position and attacking an issue I consider entirely irrelevant.
You're arguing with the right. Get used to it.
You hit it head on nail- it's better we all spend time discussing things that don't matter, like a war 30 years ago, than discussing things that do matter, like what's going on now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, or with the FTAA...
"Liberal bias" is actually rather correct, but only when you define Liberals = democrats. The true left is not with the democrats, and the media is not with them. DN! and Indymedia (of which I am a proud volunteer of the latter) are the only sources that allow leftists to be heard, and how many listeners/readers do they get? Not enough.
actually, I don't think you've ever read the washington post, otherwise you'd know that the majority of its news is economic and political, straight facts, not editorial.
Selection of what facts constitutes "news" is an inherently editorial decision. What is "news?"
Are the thousands of people who die every day news? What about a poor woman getting abducted (in contrast to the Petersons and whatnot)? Who decides?
Don't say it isn't "what's unusual" because it's usual for the stock market to go up or down a bit every day, yet that still gets covered. But AIDS victims dying (some days more, other days less) every day- is that news? No? Who says so? And Michael Jackson IS news?
How many people in the US, versus the rest of the Americas, know what the FTAA is? That in and of itself proves there's a problem with the media expressing bias in what stories they choose to represent as news.
There are too many CMU users here. Get back to misc.market, where I'm starting to get sad and lonely. -dp