Suppose you make a spoken word MP3 of your personal rant about the RIAA. And suppose you entitle this rant "Oops I did it again." And supposed you pig-encoded this on Napster.
Now, when the RIAA opens your file, have they not used the de-encoding technology to violate your copyright?
You're right in that this really doesn't protect your illegal copies, but it seems possible to trap them...not that anyone would ever make them cough up the $500K of course...
Interesting, but it'd be more relevant if Buchannan had been the universal choice of the Reform party...most of the Perot-disciples who'd been there since the beginning recognized a Nazi when they saw one, and *didn't* support him...
It's perfectly clear how this ballot works--once you see how it works. When told to follow the arrows, sure, I see it just fine. But not even the election workers all got that right the first time--several people reported being brought new ballots after the worker realized they had instructed the person incorrectly. How many did they instruct incorrectly before they caught on?
It's like the old stereograms, once you see the dolphin jumping at you, great, until then it's just a stupid-looking page. The ballot certainly appeared to be different things to different people, and that hardly seems fair...
This is another reason to go to all-mail-in ballots, as Oregon did--people have time to think and figure it out.
You are assuming that all the Nader vote would go to Gore--which it wouldn't. Nationally, Nader voters, if unable to vote for Nader would have voted 47% Gore, 27% Bush, 30 % not at all! This of course does not account for regional differences. Probably in Florida, it didn't "cost" Gore (as one of the left votes here for the taking, I agree with those who say Gore could have had us) but in Wisconsin it probably did make it closer than it would have been. Maybe Oregon too...
Partisan issues won't get through, because you need a majority of 60 -40 in the Senate to kill Fillibusters. That's how the Republicans shut down the all-Democratic govt. of 93-94.
Your take on the cooperation may very well be right though. If the Republicans are smart--not that I see any ample evidence of that--they will work the cooperation angle, and there are enough moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats that issues from both sides can be passed.
I'll believe it when I see it, but it's certainly feasible.
The paranoid in me wonders whether the Republicans did it themselves, just to smear the Democrats...
Hey, this is the party that brought you Watergate, and Iran-Contra..."dirty tricks" are their speciality.
No I don't really believe this, but if I found out it was true I wouldn't be floored.
Paranoid Stevis
Re:This is not the election......
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
"A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush"--Michael Moore
Remember, Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by a Democratic Senate. Yes, that includes a vote for confirmations by Mr. Gore. Clarence Thomas? Approved by a majority Democratic senate.
Two of the staunchest abortion rights supporters right now on the court? O'Conner (Reagan) and Souter(Bush Sr.)
Who wrote the opinion reconfirming Miranda? Rehnquist, another Republican appointee.
Don't buy into this 'Supreme Court' arguments. IF Bush scares you, and you believe Gore is significantly better, than by all means vote for Gore--after all, that would be voting your conscience. But if you have to hold your nose, chip in a vote for Nader (my choice, you may insert significantly more honorable and less corporate shill candidate of your choice).
You know,/. doesn't have a fleet of reporters covering the major & minor candidates. The only way they can be objective is post info from people supporting (or opposing) one side or another. Naturally, most of this info will suffer the biases of the author. For/. to be "objective" they have to try to link equally to both sides, and apparently they don't have a lot of pro-Bush stuff submitted (assuming, of course, CmdrTaco isn't sitting on the links...)
It's hard to be "objective," everyone has a unique take on the world. The author of the "Character Assasination" piece tried to support his arguments with evidence. I certainly wouldn't consider your post "objective," but you too are making an argument, well reasoned and supported with facts (at least generally accepted generalization), in a effort to persuade/. readers. Rather than going on about the "media bias" (Watch FOX News sometime, it's amazing how the one that claims to be "fair" has a significant conservative slant, and editorializes where it claims to be "reporting"), you should focus on those contentions of yours--if you want to build a case for conservatism, build it on its merits.
Objectivity is difficult to come by; judge each source on its perceived merits, and how fairly its claims are supported.
All of his proposals favor not people, but lawyers at the expense of businesses.
And business should be favored above all? Business which, by its very definition, places profit above people? Business has an extremely important role in this society, but the pendulum of power has swung too far in its favor.
It's people like Nader who have made the world as safe for people as it is, Firestone Tires notwithstanding, by keeping business and government honest with the harsh light of publicity. Whether this qualifies him to be President is debatable--I think I'm voting this way, if more to encourage real progressive politics than anything else--but to suggest that his primary motive is not the public interest flies in the face of the evidence. (Note that I say primary; I have no doubt he *wants* the power, on a personal level, but so do many people....)
Heck, I'm American and we had that in our little Michigan town. Actually, the library was two stories, with the kid's section on top and the adults on the main floor. We weren't roped off from browsing the main floor, but we were encouraged to stay upstairs, and they had a good selection spanning the interests of the very young to the middle school ages. This was the 80s of course, so no internet to "worry" about, I don't know what they do now....
How amusing were all the morbid NASA jokes when the Challenger blew up?
quite funny, actually, if I remember. Sick humor does serve a purpose, perhaps akin to satire: You laugh so you don't cry. We have a problem confronting death in our society; humor takes some of the edge off of that. I won't argue that it does so in a tasteful manner.
Is this whole situation tragic? Very much so. Would I laugh if one of the widows was sitting next to me? Of course not.
But, like it or not, most of us like to laugh at bone-headed technological screwups, and the irony of being killed by your ships' own offensive weapon. I certainly won't argue that it's "proper" or "intellectual", or that you shouldn't be bothered by the tactlessness of some of it. But I will argue that it is a natural means of dealing with an uncomfortable subject.
>That person is misusing university equipment, she >said, just as if she used her legislative office >phone to make long-distance personal phone calls.
Hmm...someone want to check her office phone records? I smell a hypocrite....
I don't think Voltaire would defend to the death this jerk's right to animate someone's office blowing up. It's one thing to claim superiority for your group, and how everyone else will be under your thumb. But that is a specific threat to a specific person, and that is where the speaker's rights have ended and the victim's have begun.
I do recall seeing a Lucas interview in which (in discussing that he would not make a sequel trilogy) he made an offhand comment of "This will be the six DVD set you buy for Christmas 2005." I'm quoting from memory here, so I could be off by a year . Unfortunately I don't have a source; does anyone else remember seeing this?
It could be--but I doubt it--that' you'll have to wait and buy the whole set till then...I doubt they'll be that patient in waiting for the money though.
1) Through the 14th (??) Amendment, most of the Bill of Rights has been extended to cover the states (equal protection)--this is how segregation laws were overturned.
2) It *was* an agency of the Federal Gov't. that conducted the raid..read the article!
Given the added employee loyalty companies receive from telecommuting--or any "perk"--you would think companies would slap their foreheads and say, "That's not a bad idea!" At least, as long as you weren't getting the top-of-the-line leather office chair with back massager and automatic bourbon dispenser...
It's not unreasonable to make sure telecommuters are safe, but requiring it might be tricky...see other posts for the reason to fear extinction of telecommuting if OSHA sticks its nose in (I won't be redundant here.) The trick, as always, is to make the exec realize that it's in their best interests to give you the setup you need, even if it becomes "yours" to do with as you please...
This sounds like a modern day recasting of the old urban legend--fancy new prototype. I can't follow the link right now (/. effect?) so I can't check the details, so I'm not asserting that this must be false. But you might want to flip your BS radar up on this one, until someone gets independent confirmation
A copule of comments on this thread have been along the lines of "Man, she was successful, had a way better life than me, why would she do this?" I just wanted to comment on that. It's natural to think that way--I used to, I'm not trying to rag on anyone here--but clinical depression (not the blues, or being down, but an honest-to-God mental illness) can strike anyone, regardless of what reason they have to be happy. I speak from personal experience that I'm not going to delve into, but let me say outward success will not help someone get over this disease. They need treatment, both pharmacological and psychological in most cases, to get through it. And it's not easy to tell if someone's depressed. The person I know is a wonderful actor, and if you aren't very close to them you don't know what's going on. It would be entirely possible for her close coworkers--hell, even for her husband and family--to have been completely unaware of what was going on until it was too late. There doesn't have to be an obvious trigger, a depressive episode can start for any number of unclear reasons.
Now, I don't presume to do pop psychology at a distance, since we don't know any details (and shouldn't. It's not our lives.) This has probably been to presumptive already, I just wanted to share my experiences. Without meaning to turn this into a PSA, I wanted to point out that there are plenty of resources on depression out there on the web if you're curious about what I was saying or depression in general. It's worth a look; it's very likely to touch your life somehow before it's all over.
Good point. The least crowded way out of Chicago is the Skyway--a toll road. The free roads are always clogged.
Part of the problem is that if you reduce the congestion, by building a new road or whatever, you make it less painful to drive--therefore more people will, bringing you back to the same problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose you make a spoken word MP3 of your personal rant about the RIAA. And suppose you entitle this rant "Oops I did it again." And supposed you pig-encoded this on Napster.
Now, when the RIAA opens your file, have they not used the de-encoding technology to violate your copyright?
You're right in that this really doesn't protect your illegal copies, but it seems possible to trap them...not that anyone would ever make them cough up the $500K of course...
Interesting, but it'd be more relevant if Buchannan had been the universal choice of the Reform party...most of the Perot-disciples who'd been there since the beginning recognized a Nazi when they saw one, and *didn't* support him...
Stevis
It's perfectly clear how this ballot works--once you see how it works. When told to follow the arrows, sure, I see it just fine. But not even the election workers all got that right the first time--several people reported being brought new ballots after the worker realized they had instructed the person incorrectly. How many did they instruct incorrectly before they caught on?
It's like the old stereograms, once you see the dolphin jumping at you, great, until then it's just a stupid-looking page. The ballot certainly appeared to be different things to different people, and that hardly seems fair...
This is another reason to go to all-mail-in ballots, as Oregon did--people have time to think and figure it out.
Stevis
You are assuming that all the Nader vote would go to Gore--which it wouldn't. Nationally, Nader voters, if unable to vote for Nader would have voted 47% Gore, 27% Bush, 30 % not at all! This of course does not account for regional differences. Probably in Florida, it didn't "cost" Gore (as one of the left votes here for the taking, I agree with those who say Gore could have had us) but in Wisconsin it probably did make it closer than it would have been. Maybe Oregon too...
Stevis
Partisan issues won't get through, because you need a majority of 60 -40 in the Senate to kill Fillibusters. That's how the Republicans shut down the all-Democratic govt. of 93-94.
Your take on the cooperation may very well be right though. If the Republicans are smart--not that I see any ample evidence of that--they will work the cooperation angle, and there are enough moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats that issues from both sides can be passed.
I'll believe it when I see it, but it's certainly feasible.
Stevis
The paranoid in me wonders whether the Republicans did it themselves, just to smear the Democrats...
Hey, this is the party that brought you Watergate, and Iran-Contra..."dirty tricks" are their speciality.
No I don't really believe this, but if I found out it was true I wouldn't be floored.
Paranoid Stevis
"A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush"--Michael Moore
Remember, Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by a Democratic Senate. Yes, that includes a vote for confirmations by Mr. Gore. Clarence Thomas? Approved by a majority Democratic senate.
Two of the staunchest abortion rights supporters right now on the court? O'Conner (Reagan) and Souter(Bush Sr.)
Who wrote the opinion reconfirming Miranda? Rehnquist, another Republican appointee.
Don't buy into this 'Supreme Court' arguments. IF Bush scares you, and you believe Gore is significantly better, than by all means vote for Gore--after all, that would be voting your conscience. But if you have to hold your nose, chip in a vote for Nader (my choice, you may insert significantly more honorable and less corporate shill candidate of your choice).
Stevis
You know, /. doesn't have a fleet of reporters covering the major & minor candidates. The only way they can be objective is post info from people supporting (or opposing) one side or another. Naturally, most of this info will suffer the biases of the author. For /. to be "objective" they have to try to link equally to both sides, and apparently they don't have a lot of pro-Bush stuff submitted (assuming, of course, CmdrTaco isn't sitting on the links...)
It's hard to be "objective," everyone has a unique take on the world. The author of the "Character Assasination" piece tried to support his arguments with evidence. I certainly wouldn't consider your post "objective," but you too are making an argument, well reasoned and supported with facts (at least generally accepted generalization), in a effort to persuade /. readers. Rather than going on about the "media bias" (Watch FOX News sometime, it's amazing how the one that claims to be "fair" has a significant conservative slant, and editorializes where it claims to be "reporting"), you should focus on those contentions of yours--if you want to build a case for conservatism, build it on its merits.
Objectivity is difficult to come by; judge each source on its perceived merits, and how fairly its claims are supported.
Stevis
And business should be favored above all? Business which, by its very definition, places profit above people? Business has an extremely important role in this society, but the pendulum of power has swung too far in its favor.
It's people like Nader who have made the world as safe for people as it is, Firestone Tires notwithstanding, by keeping business and government honest with the harsh light of publicity. Whether this qualifies him to be President is debatable--I think I'm voting this way, if more to encourage real progressive politics than anything else--but to suggest that his primary motive is not the public interest flies in the face of the evidence. (Note that I say primary; I have no doubt he *wants* the power, on a personal level, but so do many people....)
Stevis
Heck, I'm American and we had that in our little Michigan town. Actually, the library was two stories, with the kid's section on top and the adults on the main floor. We weren't roped off from browsing the main floor, but we were encouraged to stay upstairs, and they had a good selection spanning the interests of the very young to the middle school ages. This was the 80s of course, so no internet to "worry" about, I don't know what they do now....
quite funny, actually, if I remember. Sick humor does serve a purpose, perhaps akin to satire: You laugh so you don't cry. We have a problem confronting death in our society; humor takes some of the edge off of that. I won't argue that it does so in a tasteful manner.
Is this whole situation tragic? Very much so. Would I laugh if one of the widows was sitting next to me? Of course not.
But, like it or not, most of us like to laugh at bone-headed technological screwups, and the irony of being killed by your ships' own offensive weapon. I certainly won't argue that it's "proper" or "intellectual", or that you shouldn't be bothered by the tactlessness of some of it. But I will argue that it is a natural means of dealing with an uncomfortable subject.
Stevis
>That person is misusing university equipment, she
>said, just as if she used her legislative office >phone to make long-distance personal phone calls.
Hmm...someone want to check her office phone records? I smell a hypocrite....
Stevis
I don't think Voltaire would defend to the death this jerk's right to animate someone's office blowing up. It's one thing to claim superiority for your group, and how everyone else will be under your thumb. But that is a specific threat to a specific person, and that is where the speaker's rights have ended and the victim's have begun.
I do recall seeing a Lucas interview in which (in discussing that he would not make a sequel trilogy) he made an offhand comment of "This will be the six DVD set you buy for Christmas 2005." I'm quoting from memory here, so I could be off by a year . Unfortunately I don't have a source; does anyone else remember seeing this?
It could be--but I doubt it--that' you'll have to wait and buy the whole set till then...I doubt they'll be that patient in waiting for the money though.
Stevis
1) Through the 14th (??) Amendment, most of the Bill of Rights has been extended to cover the states (equal protection)--this is how segregation laws were overturned.
2) It *was* an agency of the Federal Gov't. that conducted the raid..read the article!
Stevis
Given the added employee loyalty companies receive from telecommuting--or any "perk"--you would think companies would slap their foreheads and say, "That's not a bad idea!" At least, as long as you weren't getting the top-of-the-line leather office chair with back massager and automatic bourbon dispenser...
It's not unreasonable to make sure telecommuters are safe, but requiring it might be tricky...see other posts for the reason to fear extinction of telecommuting if OSHA sticks its nose in (I won't be redundant here.) The trick, as always, is to make the exec realize that it's in their best interests to give you the setup you need, even if it becomes "yours" to do with as you please...
Stevis
This sounds like a modern day recasting of the old urban legend--fancy new prototype. I can't follow the link right now (/. effect?) so I can't check the details, so I'm not asserting that this must be false. But you might want to flip your BS radar up on this one, until someone gets independent confirmation
Stevis
A copule of comments on this thread have been along the lines of "Man, she was successful, had a way better life than me, why would she do this?" I just wanted to comment on that. It's natural to think that way--I used to, I'm not trying to rag on anyone here--but clinical depression (not the blues, or being down, but an honest-to-God mental illness) can strike anyone, regardless of what reason they have to be happy. I speak from personal experience that I'm not going to delve into, but let me say outward success will not help someone get over this disease. They need treatment, both pharmacological and psychological in most cases, to get through it. And it's not easy to tell if someone's depressed. The person I know is a wonderful actor, and if you aren't very close to them you don't know what's going on. It would be entirely possible for her close coworkers--hell, even for her husband and family--to have been completely unaware of what was going on until it was too late. There doesn't have to be an obvious trigger, a depressive episode can start for any number of unclear reasons.
Now, I don't presume to do pop psychology at a distance, since we don't know any details (and shouldn't. It's not our lives.) This has probably been to presumptive already, I just wanted to share my experiences. Without meaning to turn this into a PSA, I wanted to point out that there are plenty of resources on depression out there on the web if you're curious about what I was saying or depression in general. It's worth a look; it's very likely to touch your life somehow before it's all over.
Stevis
Good point. The least crowded way out of Chicago is the Skyway--a toll road. The free roads are always clogged.
Part of the problem is that if you reduce the congestion, by building a new road or whatever, you make it less painful to drive--therefore more people will, bringing you back to the same problem.