So if its neither, such as a discussion about how bad your car is, or some technical discussion about evolution, then its not protected online.
No, no, NO. The Federal Elections Commission only regulates, you guessed it, ELECTIONS. They only have regulatory authority when it comes to campaign speech. Get a clue, go back to school. Fool.
Give us some credit, we only actually elected him ONCE. Unfortunately, that was after he had spent the four years of his unelected first term showing us how unqualified he was for the job.
Not so fast, cowboy! The FCC ruled no such thing - all they did was release a report saying that consumers would save money if cable stations went to an a la carte model, contradicting a report they released in 2004 (from the National Journal, among other sources I'm sure you could find).
Apple maintains their own fork of webkit. Code is often contributed back to the KDE team, but is often not directly usable by them, as the Apple fork is significantly different in places. At least that was the situation a couple months back.
They don't maintain their own fork of WebKit, WebKit *IS* the fork. KDE doesn't use WebKit, they use KHTML and KJS, from which WebKit was derived.
Close but not quite there..m4a is the file extension use for ANY non-DRMed AAC files, at least by iTunes. So if you ripped your own CDs to mp4 using iTunes, it'll add the.m4a extension to the tracks.
And although I have not looked into it, it seems to me that the obvious conclusion then is that the Apple Lossless "format" is basically just an mp4 file with an insanely high bitrate.
Are you simply on the bandwagon with what everybody else is saying about my post?
Well, I can't comment much on the content of your article itself as all I get is a 404 when I click on the link. Aside from that, much of the outrage over your "opinion piece" seems to be because this looks like nothing more than whoring for publicity for your little blog. The high UID and lack of any comments in your history prior to today doesn't help either. In addition, anytime somebody validly criticizes you, you get unnecessarily defensive and start beating your chest (it really isn't unreasonable to expect an article to be spell and grammar checked before being published for the world to see. And the previous poster was correct, you do not type at 89 wpm if you can't do so accurately). So grow a thicker skin, learn to accept valid criticism, and by all means take an grammar refresher course (judging from your comments, you could use one), it will only help your future career.
And in fact, he is part of guilds that have officers and members who are very gay-UNfriendly. But it doesn't matter. Because he doesn't go saying "I'm Gay."
If he wants to go around accepting bigotry in the world, more power to him. I think he's a fucking coward.
Whether a guild is GLBT-friendly or not should not even come into account! Guilds shouldn't have to advertise it, because people shouldn't have to go around proclaiming it. You see people wearing "Gay Pride" items, rainbow necklaces, and all sorts of other things. But how often do you see "Straight pride" necklaces and wristbands? How often do you see "I'm straight and I vote" bumper stickers?
Straight people don't need to announce that they're straight, because MOST PEOPLE WILL ASSUME YOU ARE STRAIGHT, a safe assumption, given that we are the majority. They also don't need to announce they're "pride", because it's generally acceptable to be straight, whereas too many people still think being gay is something you should be ashamed of.
And please don't bring up the tonsil-tagging issues. I don't think ANYBODY, straight, gay, or whatever, should be doing that
Well there's one thing we can agree on.
The difference is that the straight couple will usually get embarrassed and take it to a room, while the gay couple will get indignant and accuse me of being a gay-hater.
Not true in my experience, but maybe the straight people at parties you go to are more considerate and gay people at those parties are ruder. OR maybe you're exaggerating so that you can use statistics to "prove" that you're not a hater, but that they "deserve" to be chastised because "they" just aren't as considerate.
I used to interview people, and I actually found that I got SICK of people coming in and saying "Oh, and I'm gay. Is that a problem?". I don't CARE if you're gay, straight people don't come in and say "Oh, and I'm straight. Is that a problem?".
Again, this is because very rarely is being straight going to be a problem, but being gay often is because of so-called "tolerant" people like you.
Comparisons: If a bridge built by an Engeneer collapses and people die, the engeneer loses their licence to practise, and will probably face criminal charges. If a Doctor F*#!s up and a patient dies, same deal.
Well, I don't know a lot about engineers and their licensing, but this seems pretty farfetched to me. Maybe in cases where it can be shown that the bridge collapsing was due to something the engineer did (or failed to do), then maybe.
But doctors? I call bullshit. I don't have the cite in front of me, but apparently most malpractice claims are against doctors who have repeatedly been sued, i.e. already fucked up once, DIDN"T LOSE THEIR LICENSES, and went on to fuck up again. In most states, the medical boards that license doctors are more interested in protecting their own than protecting the public from bad doctors. Doctors rarely stop practicing because they lose their licenses, they stop because insurance companies eventually wise up and raise their malpractice insurance to the point that even they can't pay it anymore. Unfortunately, the byproduct of this is that every doctor's malpractice rates go up some too, and we all end up paying for it.
As far as a lawyers go, they're really no different than any other self-regulating profession: they prioritize protecting their own (which is why in some states it can be really hard to get admitted to the bar, but once you're in you're more or less set). When the rules of ethics (yes lawyers have ethics, even if they're ethics you don't agree with) happen to benefit the client or the public, it's because doing so helps lawyers.
I thought the idea of WYSIWYG goes completely against HTML's separation of content from presentation. I can't imagine why TBL would say something like this, perhaps his meaning of WYSIWYG is different from mine?
You totally missed the point; he's not saying that HTML should be edited with a WYSIWYG editor; he's saying that he's surprised that people would be willing to do things the right way, without an editor. Of course, little did he know that most people weren't willing to do so, hence the development of crap like Dreamweaver, GoLive, etc.
The media does not prop up a certain concept of feminine beauty which we would not otherwise arrive at.
Bullshit. The media does propagandizes a concept of beauty that is most expensive and most difficult to attain, in an effort to get us to buy more shit.
All it does is reflect what we all want to see. They have no agenda to change our appetites, because there's far more money in feeding the ones we already have.
You discount the fact that the "[appetites] we have" have already been significantly influenced by the media. And once again I'll repeat: they have an interest in changing our appetites, to the extent that they can convince the us to substitute a more expensive choice for a cheaper one.
1) "It just is" isn't really an argument. To be fair, I haven't really looked to see if there's any basis for stating that domains are not property, I was merely stating the possibility. My basis is looking at U.S. grazing leases; I can't cite the exact statute off the top of my head (and I'm in the midst of finals, so I can't spend a great deal of time on it right now), but basically the law explicitly states that ranchers have no property right in the leased lands. I'm theorizing that there may be a similar sort of thing happening with domains.
2) But you could also argue that while the "auctioned" price of a.xxx and a.com domain may not be equal, there would be no economic harm to the business by substituting one for the other, and therefore there isn't a "taking".
3) ICANN does also operate as a sort of "government contractor", and therefore it's actions could be considered to be government action. Again I was merely stating the possibility of an opposing argument, not fully developing it.
Really though, I'm skeptical that they would be "forced" into a.xxx domain. I do think however that the explicitly porn sites would want to voluntarily open up business there, as it would mean that visitors to their sites would be more likely to be potential customers, and it would defuse a lot of the political tension of having them co-exist with others in the.com domain. The biggest reason i would think they would not want.xxx domains is the potential for censorship, i.e. countries or businesses blocking those domains, but I don't think that would happen if the domains were voluntary. If countries did start blocking those domains to the point where porn sites were economically damaged, they would probably just move back to sites in the.com namespace. Nations in general would be better off having porn sites in a convenient "section" of the internet where uninterested consumers could then decide to filter them out on their own.
You're also making a few simple and possibly incorrect assumptions:
1. That a domain name is property. 2. That even if it is property, "taking it away" and then giving you a.xxx domain in exchange for it would NOT be just compensation. 3. That ICANN taking your domain name is a government act. I think an argument could be made that it is not, and therefore the eminent domain (NOTE THAT IIT IS NOT PLURAL) wouldn't even apply. Of course, if you assume that its property, this could then be a violation of other laws.
That may be what most of America is, but most Americans don't live there. Even in the most "rural" of states (South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, etc), most of the population of the state is within one of the "big cities", even if that city is only 80,000 people. Towns of a thousand people may outnumber cities of a million, but as a portion of total population they're almost irrelevant.
Oh, and it's collar not "coller". I guess they don't teach spelling in one room school houses in the sticks.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us believe that campaign contributions should be 100% without limits
Those people are either idiots or megalomaniacs trying to buy what they could in no honest way control otherwise. Which are you?
So if its neither, such as a discussion about how bad your car is, or some technical discussion about evolution, then its not protected online.
No, no, NO. The Federal Elections Commission only regulates, you guessed it, ELECTIONS. They only have regulatory authority when it comes to campaign speech. Get a clue, go back to school. Fool.
As long as it keeps fiscally responsible, small government republicans in office, I don't care how many votes we have to step on.
Too bad there's no such thing.
Give us some credit, we only actually elected him ONCE. Unfortunately, that was after he had spent the four years of his unelected first term showing us how unqualified he was for the job.
Amazingly, I get identical results when I do "sex" vs. "effect". I'm pretty certain it's ignoring the "/.".
They are just "evil" or don't have/believe in ethics.
They're Republicans?
Not so fast, cowboy! The FCC ruled no such thing - all they did was release a report saying that consumers would save money if cable stations went to an a la carte model, contradicting a report they released in 2004 (from the National Journal, among other sources I'm sure you could find).
Apple maintains their own fork of webkit. Code is often contributed back to the KDE team, but is often not directly usable by them, as the Apple fork is significantly different in places. At least that was the situation a couple months back.
They don't maintain their own fork of WebKit, WebKit *IS* the fork. KDE doesn't use WebKit, they use KHTML and KJS, from which WebKit was derived.
I stand corrected: it's a proprietary codec wrapped in an .mp4 container.
.m4a is used for Apple Lossless content
.m4a is the file extension use for ANY non-DRMed AAC files, at least by iTunes. So if you ripped your own CDs to mp4 using iTunes, it'll add the .m4a extension to the tracks.
Close but not quite there.
And although I have not looked into it, it seems to me that the obvious conclusion then is that the Apple Lossless "format" is basically just an mp4 file with an insanely high bitrate.
Are you simply on the bandwagon with what everybody else is saying about my post?
Well, I can't comment much on the content of your article itself as all I get is a 404 when I click on the link. Aside from that, much of the outrage over your "opinion piece" seems to be because this looks like nothing more than whoring for publicity for your little blog. The high UID and lack of any comments in your history prior to today doesn't help either. In addition, anytime somebody validly criticizes you, you get unnecessarily defensive and start beating your chest (it really isn't unreasonable to expect an article to be spell and grammar checked before being published for the world to see. And the previous poster was correct, you do not type at 89 wpm if you can't do so accurately). So grow a thicker skin, learn to accept valid criticism, and by all means take an grammar refresher course (judging from your comments, you could use one), it will only help your future career.
And in fact, he is part of guilds that have officers and members who are very gay-UNfriendly. But it doesn't matter. Because he doesn't go saying "I'm Gay."
If he wants to go around accepting bigotry in the world, more power to him. I think he's a fucking coward.
Whether a guild is GLBT-friendly or not should not even come into account! Guilds shouldn't have to advertise it, because people shouldn't have to go around proclaiming it. You see people wearing "Gay Pride" items, rainbow necklaces, and all sorts of other things. But how often do you see "Straight pride" necklaces and wristbands? How often do you see "I'm straight and I vote" bumper stickers?
Straight people don't need to announce that they're straight, because MOST PEOPLE WILL ASSUME YOU ARE STRAIGHT, a safe assumption, given that we are the majority. They also don't need to announce they're "pride", because it's generally acceptable to be straight, whereas too many people still think being gay is something you should be ashamed of.
And please don't bring up the tonsil-tagging issues. I don't think ANYBODY, straight, gay, or whatever, should be doing that
Well there's one thing we can agree on.
The difference is that the straight couple will usually get embarrassed and take it to a room, while the gay couple will get indignant and accuse me of being a gay-hater.
Not true in my experience, but maybe the straight people at parties you go to are more considerate and gay people at those parties are ruder. OR maybe you're exaggerating so that you can use statistics to "prove" that you're not a hater, but that they "deserve" to be chastised because "they" just aren't as considerate.
I used to interview people, and I actually found that I got SICK of people coming in and saying "Oh, and I'm gay. Is that a problem?". I don't CARE if you're gay, straight people don't come in and say "Oh, and I'm straight. Is that a problem?".
Again, this is because very rarely is being straight going to be a problem, but being gay often is because of so-called "tolerant" people like you.
"Flash and image ads - in themselves - are not evil."
Actually, they are. Period. End of Story.
Comparisons: If a bridge built by an Engeneer collapses and people die, the engeneer loses their licence to practise, and will probably face criminal charges. If a Doctor F*#!s up and a patient dies, same deal.
Well, I don't know a lot about engineers and their licensing, but this seems pretty farfetched to me. Maybe in cases where it can be shown that the bridge collapsing was due to something the engineer did (or failed to do), then maybe.
But doctors? I call bullshit. I don't have the cite in front of me, but apparently most malpractice claims are against doctors who have repeatedly been sued, i.e. already fucked up once, DIDN"T LOSE THEIR LICENSES, and went on to fuck up again. In most states, the medical boards that license doctors are more interested in protecting their own than protecting the public from bad doctors. Doctors rarely stop practicing because they lose their licenses, they stop because insurance companies eventually wise up and raise their malpractice insurance to the point that even they can't pay it anymore. Unfortunately, the byproduct of this is that every doctor's malpractice rates go up some too, and we all end up paying for it.
As far as a lawyers go, they're really no different than any other self-regulating profession: they prioritize protecting their own (which is why in some states it can be really hard to get admitted to the bar, but once you're in you're more or less set). When the rules of ethics (yes lawyers have ethics, even if they're ethics you don't agree with) happen to benefit the client or the public, it's because doing so helps lawyers.
I thought the idea of WYSIWYG goes completely against HTML's separation of content from presentation. I can't imagine why TBL would say something like this, perhaps his meaning of WYSIWYG is different from mine?
You totally missed the point; he's not saying that HTML should be edited with a WYSIWYG editor; he's saying that he's surprised that people would be willing to do things the right way, without an editor. Of course, little did he know that most people weren't willing to do so, hence the development of crap like Dreamweaver, GoLive, etc.
Because he's too busy actually accomplishing something?
The media does not prop up a certain concept of feminine beauty which we would not otherwise arrive at.
Bullshit. The media does propagandizes a concept of beauty that is most expensive and most difficult to attain, in an effort to get us to buy more shit.
All it does is reflect what we all want to see. They have no agenda to change our appetites, because there's far more money in feeding the ones we already have.
You discount the fact that the "[appetites] we have" have already been significantly influenced by the media. And once again I'll repeat: they have an interest in changing our appetites, to the extent that they can convince the us to substitute a more expensive choice for a cheaper one.
The EFF and iSEC delayed disclosing the problem until SunnComm could develop a fix.
There's been a fix all along: don't put crappy security compromising DRM on CDs.
No it wasn't, but it was clearly intended to be.
whoooooooooooooooosh!
Even I with my severely impaired sense of humor got that one...
1) "It just is" isn't really an argument. To be fair, I haven't really looked to see if there's any basis for stating that domains are not property, I was merely stating the possibility. My basis is looking at U.S. grazing leases; I can't cite the exact statute off the top of my head (and I'm in the midst of finals, so I can't spend a great deal of time on it right now), but basically the law explicitly states that ranchers have no property right in the leased lands. I'm theorizing that there may be a similar sort of thing happening with domains.
.xxx and a .com domain may not be equal, there would be no economic harm to the business by substituting one for the other, and therefore there isn't a "taking".
.xxx domain. I do think however that the explicitly porn sites would want to voluntarily open up business there, as it would mean that visitors to their sites would be more likely to be potential customers, and it would defuse a lot of the political tension of having them co-exist with others in the .com domain. The biggest reason i would think they would not want .xxx domains is the potential for censorship, i.e. countries or businesses blocking those domains, but I don't think that would happen if the domains were voluntary. If countries did start blocking those domains to the point where porn sites were economically damaged, they would probably just move back to sites in the .com namespace. Nations in general would be better off having porn sites in a convenient "section" of the internet where uninterested consumers could then decide to filter them out on their own.
2) But you could also argue that while the "auctioned" price of a
3) ICANN does also operate as a sort of "government contractor", and therefore it's actions could be considered to be government action. Again I was merely stating the possibility of an opposing argument, not fully developing it.
Really though, I'm skeptical that they would be "forced" into a
You're also making a few simple and possibly incorrect assumptions:
.xxx domain in exchange for it would NOT be just compensation.
1. That a domain name is property.
2. That even if it is property, "taking it away" and then giving you a
3. That ICANN taking your domain name is a government act. I think an argument could be made that it is not, and therefore the eminent domain (NOTE THAT IIT IS NOT PLURAL) wouldn't even apply. Of course, if you assume that its property, this could then be a violation of other laws.
That may be what most of America is, but most Americans don't live there. Even in the most "rural" of states (South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, etc), most of the population of the state is within one of the "big cities", even if that city is only 80,000 people. Towns of a thousand people may outnumber cities of a million, but as a portion of total population they're almost irrelevant.
Oh, and it's collar not "coller". I guess they don't teach spelling in one room school houses in the sticks.
Sadly that article is just as bad as the article originally linked.
People like you must be stopped.