You actually see this as an "either-or" situation?
No. My point is that child porn is far from being the ultimate evil. Yes, it sucks when kids are forced to have sex with adults so that perverts can watch photos/videos of it. But this is not the end of the world and the attention paid to this issue is disproportionate to its seriousness. Child porn scare is 10% real problem and 90% hysterics fueled by media and other irresponsible parties.
I think it is rational to tackle problems starting from most serious (most urgent). Child porn is neither. The chances are probably higher that your kid (or any other kid) will be killed by a drunk driver, killed by another kid, start taking hard drugs and die in a couple years, etc. than that he will be a victim of child porn. The question is why we mostly ignore other problems (or do something, but clearly not enough), but seemingly are willing to do absolutely anything to stop distribution of child porn. And notice how nobody is usually talking about producers of child porn, but only about consumers.
Let's solve more serious and more urgent problems first. Of course, for any politicial it's much easier to fight child porn (you only need to pass a law, nobody will be able to check it's effectiveness) than to fix the broken education system. So, yes, my statement was dead serious.
Where [sic] talking about an affective [sic] way of keeping child pornography out of the US.
Freudian slip, may be? Because this really is an affective, not effective, way to keep child porn out of the US.
The fact is that there is already child porn in the US and some of it originates there. But may be, just may be, you should pay more attention to fighting parental abuse, not child porn. Much more kids are screwed by bad (as in horrific) parenting than by being forced into kiddie porn.
If they know the IPs, why don't they just raid the creeps and cut it off at the source?
1) These sites probably have nothing to do with sources of child porn. 2) Many people that you think you know, including potentially some of your friends and relatives regularly view child porn. Are they creeps?
Question: do you think you are a free-thinking individual or do you realise that you've been programmed by the media to think that kiddie porn dealers are scum? Also have you considered the fact that some child porn sites feature free child porn?
That's exactly the sort of thing central planners do--and that's exactly why they fail. We love our cars (most of us; the exceptions are just so much statistical noise). The central planner will spend a shitload of money on a little-used system. Gosh, that was efficient. That's the whole point. People will not love their cars, unless they have them. For you the efficiency of the market is an axiom. Forget about it for a moment. There isn't only one optimal solution. And public transportation system will be used if there is no alternative in the form of expensive and polluting personal cars. And people will be happy. As one of the Murphy's laws says, "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse." That is often true about market. Just look at American music and movies. The fact that they are made in a free market doesn't mean they are the best possible. Countries where movie and/or music production was controlled (planned) had higher quality products. Of course, let to themselves, people will consistently choose crap over quality product in this area, that's precisely why free market fails.
Nope--as wealthy as he and Warren Buffet are, their net worths are a mere drop in an enormous economic bucket.
Sorry, I chose wrong words, it's not the most important thing, given the cumulative wealth of other people. What I meant is that BG's happiness is many times more important than the happiness of any other person. This indeed is easily proven.
And what's so wrong with someone's value being approximate to his wealth?
Do you think that Bill's job was hundred thousand of times more important than creation of penicillin or invention of WWW? Than Ghandi's work? Than MLK's job?
That's because Russia's market wasn't free.
Because free market has absolute efficiency by definition. If any market is not efficient and people starve there this is not a free market. Very useful logic to defend the free market.:)
Russia is a text-book example of how not to be free. In many aspects Russia is freer today than the US. And Americans better do something now, or they might be become the next example in the 2020 textbooks.:)
Fine--that means you'd rather be a slave than a free man. Bullshit. You have no idea what slavery is. Waiting in line to buy something is not slavery, otherwise we can consider Americans to be slaves during WW2. If you want to call it slavery, I can simply call your mother a whore and end this discussion.
The judge didn't say it's ok to mislead the customers with banner replacements. This question was simply not asked. What he said was that it's ok to cover banners with your own ads (or, presumably, remove the banners).
I believe that we will put a human on Mars and colonize the moon/planets. Not in my lifetime, probably, but eventually. Why imagine it? On the other hand, I doubt if any human will roam the countryside with his elf companion, talking to trees and hunting dragons and wizards. Ever.
I suggest you read some materials (non-fiction) about AI, nanotech, scientific immortalism, etc. Reading some textbooks (or more accessible popular science books) on physics/chemistry/biology/astronomy/other stuff would also help.
Then you would know that (unless you are 70+ already) you have decent chances to be immortal, to visit other star systems, to roam (in a virtual world indistinguishable from reality, or here on real Earth if you wish) whatever side with elves, talking trees, wizards, whatever.
I really hate when people don't bother to learn anymore. Thanks to science and technology your own damn future is more excting than anything that you can read about in some pulp fantasy novel. Would you please fucking appreciate that?
Space travel as discussed in science fiction has become something that we no longer hope for in our lifetimes.
What "lifetimes" are you talking about? That is the part of the future, dammit! We are not going to live a measly 70 years and this is part of the story that is not told. Robinson decided to concentrate on space, but his rant is valid in relation to all other frontiers. 50 years ago we couldn't believe that one day all deseases including old age could be cured. Now we know it almost for certain. And why mainstream sci-fi doesn't speak about it? Same with nanotechnology. Why, oh why, forecasts by scientists are now more exciting than sci-fi?
Actually this is a pretty interesting question, given that our society is going to become more wired with every passing year. I expect Apple to do everything not to delist any songs, unless, of course, iTunes goes out of business. But you are right that a risk still remains. Howether, I am afraid any forecasts about this become pure speculations because of the speed of progress. Napster started just a few years ago, MP3s appeared not long before that, Internet (as in WWW) is only some 10+ years old. I think to have any expectations than "better, faster, cheaper" about the future is odd.:) So even though there are some risks, the most expected outcome is for iTunes to grow more and more until they have every song and can provide it to you at any time and in any place. Remember, there always is (at least potential) competition from P2P. A much worse offering would not suffice.
They can prohibit sharing by requiring you to reauthorise with iTunes first, removing the rights to the song and only after that would a buyer get his new license.
Since no music can ever become out of print or rare at iTunes, that removes another incentive to buy "used" songs. People would have to sell them for less than 0.99 to make others interested and to compensate them the complexity of buying the song on eBay instead of the convenience of iTunes. That would make sense with large collections and, I believe that once this will really become important for iTunes customers, Apple will do something. After all, lack of a resell market for digital songs would somewhat limit their value and make people hesitant to spend money on them.
But in any case, iTunes is a doomed venture. Unrestricted MP3s/OGGs are the way to go. Eventually it will become obvious, although Apple might get a fair profit alongway.
Without copyright law there wouldn't be much need for GPL. And free software would be just fine without GPL - BSD was pretty successful and is the second most successful OSS licence.
Total upload = total download. The worst thing that could happen is a decrease in traffic. The biggest sharers in any P2P always upload more than they download. So there is nothing really terrible about decreased number of sharers. Yes, it's unfortunate, but P2P networks will survive.
Think about it: how can a central planner know what the next big fad is going to be?
Simple. He ignores that. Take cars for example. Cars are considered an integral part of American Way, but a central planner would simply build a convenient public transporation system and provide cars only to emergency services and taxi companies. Did he fail to foresee the fad? How could you say it when in that alternative reality the fad failed to emerge. How can there be a Pokemon craze in a planned economy if planners simply decide not to produce Pokemon cartoons or toys?
The free market is the best possible mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources.
Wrong. The free market is the best possible mechanism to allocate scarce resources to reach Pareto optimum in the system where all participants are free to sell, buy and do business. Basically free market is the best system for the market economy. That's all.
Fairness of the market is overestimated. For example, have you considered that free market logically means that people's worth equals to the amount of money they have (or at least roughly proportional). That means that happiness of Bill Gates is considered first and foremost priority in the world. To see this you only need a basic understanding of microeconomics, particularly the utility model.
As for the flexibility of markets, for some reason it only works about 10% of the time, but proponents of the markets choose to ignore the other 90% cases. Consider Russia, where free market brought misery to the majority of the population after the centrally planned economy was destroyed. The economic crisis Russia faced after transition to free market is more severe (-50%) than even the Great Depression of the US (-30%). Add to that the rest of the developing world where the free market failed to do its magic. And at the same time look at what Soviet Russia managed to achieve in 1920s-1960s with planned economy. To change from agrarian country into a world superpower, which during some periods also had good quality of life, comparable with the capitalist countries.
I particularly hate the word shortage. People think that when you have full shelves at stores it is somehow better than when you don't. They fail to realise that what matters is not the shortage, it's how much people can actually eat/consume. In early 1990s Russia faced shortages and rationing. After prices were "liberated", shortages disappeared, but the actual consumption levels plummeted. I would take shortages and rationing over that. I would rather wait in line to get my milk than have 45% of the people in the country live below the official poverty line (today, after 13 years of free market).
Imagine you are engaged in heated debate with a nitwit. Perhaps he insists that the tiny amount of electromagnetic radiation produced by small appliances is life-threatening. Maybe he claims that science - science! - proves that ancient, unprincipled medical practices are still relevant today. Possibly he asserts that telepathy and ESP are firmly grounded in modern physics. You've probably been taught to suffer such brainlessness, to be "open-minded" lest you endure the scorn of a society that ham-handedly stuffs tolerance down your throat. Maybe you've even managed to convince yourself that there is benefit in listening patiently to views that conflict violently with common sense. After all, how can you accurately judge a person's ideas unless you hear their entire line of reasoning? Didn't everyone call Einstein crazy? Don't you risk missing out on a superior and revolutionary way of thinking? It's best, it might seem, to simply hear them out before passing judgment.
My friends, do not fall into this trap. These people are not latter-day Einsteins. They are the slobbering, gibbering cretins you believe them to be. Do not be tricked into equating unbiased thinking with uncritical thinking. Do not be ashamed of dismissing them out of hand. No! Break free of the chains of open- mindedness! Throw down the shackles of undiscriminating tolerance! Refuse to endure another instant of sanity-eroding idiocy!
This all assumes, of course, that you are not a moron. If you are a moron, you should listen to your betters. You should also go far, far away - this very instant, mind you - and never trouble us again.
How, one might ask, did close-mindedness get such a bad rap? It's the tyranny of the majority, dear reader. You see, idiots vastly outnumber clear-thinking souls like ourselves. A moment's reflection will make this clear. Think, for example, of intelligent design theory, evolutionary psychology, and Star Wars missile defense. We are awash in a flood of filtered, purified drivel that erodes our ability to think critically and leaves us gasping for rational exposition. The loonies are everywhere, demanding our attention in a compulsive need to spread their viral stupidity. They don't want you questioning the rationality of their ravings. They don't want you pointing out obvious logical flaws. No! When we rightfully blow them off they decry our haughtiness and froth over our unreasoning hatred of different points of view. In this manner they have fought to make discretion unfashionable and dragoon otherwise reasonable individuals into hearing them out.
What can we do to combat this evil movement against closed-mindedness? The solution is to aggressively, assiduously ignore the slack-jawed hordes. This requires developing rules of thumb for identifying those who are likely to be wastes of time - psychiatrists, goateed self-described philosophers, Bush voters, and so on. Some people have a hard time accepting this. They point out that such generalizations may fail when applied to a specific individual, thereby revealing their need to bone up on the definition of "generalization". "How can you say that all sociologists are fatuous blowhards?" they say. "That's a sweeping generalization - surely there's some sociologist who conducts useful research". This is not the point. While it turns out that in this particular example the general rule is never violated - all sociologists truly are fatuous blowhards - the idea is that even if this were sometimes false, probabilistically speaking one would still come out ahead by tuning out whenever a sociologist opens his or her mouth.
"Good day, sir. I have recently completed research wherein I demonstrate that a complex set of human behaviors can be divided into an ad hoc set of complementary categories. The ingenious twist is that particular behaviors - in fact, all behaviors that anyone has ever specifically mentione
Re:Remember when they bought the Dejanews archive?
on
Google Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
I thought so. But there is such thing as unintended irony, which is the case here.:)
This guy has an agenda and he needs to be watched out for.
Public offer: If you happen to know an impressionable game junky, I am willing to reimburse the cost of Hitman and Hitman 2 games, on the condition that you buy these games for the above mentioned junky and provide him/her with the home address of Jack Thompson. This offer becomes valid immediately.
Well, how about Take Two or Rockstar Games co-operate (hire the lawyers) with some of the guys whose cars were shot and sue the parents for gross negligence? That would teach those suckers (and everyone else who dreams about suing a gaming company) a lesson...
Re:Remember when they bought the Dejanews archive?
on
Google Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
For those who didn't notice the irony in the parent post, the final sentence of the 1984 is "He loved the Big Brother".
AltaVista - because it was the first search engine, because it provides decent quality results today and because it doesn't censor search results, like Google does.
Slashdot Mirror
You actually see this as an "either-or" situation?
No. My point is that child porn is far from being the ultimate evil. Yes, it sucks when kids are forced to have sex with adults so that perverts can watch photos/videos of it. But this is not the end of the world and the attention paid to this issue is disproportionate to its seriousness. Child porn scare is 10% real problem and 90% hysterics fueled by media and other irresponsible parties.
I think it is rational to tackle problems starting from most serious (most urgent). Child porn is neither. The chances are probably higher that your kid (or any other kid) will be killed by a drunk driver, killed by another kid, start taking hard drugs and die in a couple years, etc. than that he will be a victim of child porn. The question is why we mostly ignore other problems (or do something, but clearly not enough), but seemingly are willing to do absolutely anything to stop distribution of child porn. And notice how nobody is usually talking about producers of child porn, but only about consumers.
Let's solve more serious and more urgent problems first. Of course, for any politicial it's much easier to fight child porn (you only need to pass a law, nobody will be able to check it's effectiveness) than to fix the broken education system. So, yes, my statement was dead serious.
Where [sic] talking about an affective [sic] way of keeping child pornography out of the US.
Freudian slip, may be? Because this really is an affective, not effective, way to keep child porn out of the US.
The fact is that there is already child porn in the US and some of it originates there. But may be, just may be, you should pay more attention to fighting parental abuse, not child porn. Much more kids are screwed by bad (as in horrific) parenting than by being forced into kiddie porn.
If they know the IPs, why don't they just raid the creeps and cut it off at the source?
1) These sites probably have nothing to do with sources of child porn.
2) Many people that you think you know, including potentially some of your friends and relatives regularly view child porn. Are they creeps?
Question: do you think you are a free-thinking individual or do you realise that you've been programmed by the media to think that kiddie porn dealers are scum? Also have you considered the fact that some child porn sites feature free child porn?
Please stop moderating up posts saying that the term "bug" was used before September 9. Read moderation guidelines, such posts are (-1, Redundant).
As for Bostrom's argument.. it's a largely irrelevant piece of metaphysics, IMHO.
You might be interested in the rebuttal: Are We Living In Nick Bostrom's Speculation?.
That's exactly the sort of thing central planners do--and that's exactly why they fail. We love our cars (most of us; the exceptions are just so much statistical noise). The central planner will spend a shitload of money on a little-used system. Gosh, that was efficient.
:)
:)
That's the whole point. People will not love their cars, unless they have them. For you the efficiency of the market is an axiom. Forget about it for a moment. There isn't only one optimal solution. And public transportation system will be used if there is no alternative in the form of expensive and polluting personal cars. And people will be happy. As one of the Murphy's laws says, "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse." That is often true about market. Just look at American music and movies. The fact that they are made in a free market doesn't mean they are the best possible. Countries where movie and/or music production was controlled (planned) had higher quality products. Of course, let to themselves, people will consistently choose crap over quality product in this area, that's precisely why free market fails.
Nope--as wealthy as he and Warren Buffet are, their net worths are a mere drop in an enormous economic bucket.
Sorry, I chose wrong words, it's not the most important thing, given the cumulative wealth of other people. What I meant is that BG's happiness is many times more important than the happiness of any other person. This indeed is easily proven.
And what's so wrong with someone's value being approximate to his wealth?
Do you think that Bill's job was hundred thousand of times more important than creation of penicillin or invention of WWW? Than Ghandi's work? Than MLK's job?
That's because Russia's market wasn't free.
Because free market has absolute efficiency by definition. If any market is not efficient and people starve there this is not a free market. Very useful logic to defend the free market.
Russia is a text-book example of how not to be free.
In many aspects Russia is freer today than the US. And Americans better do something now, or they might be become the next example in the 2020 textbooks.
Fine--that means you'd rather be a slave than a free man.
Bullshit. You have no idea what slavery is. Waiting in line to buy something is not slavery, otherwise we can consider Americans to be slaves during WW2. If you want to call it slavery, I can simply call your mother a whore and end this discussion.
The judge didn't say it's ok to mislead the customers with banner replacements. This question was simply not asked. What he said was that it's ok to cover banners with your own ads (or, presumably, remove the banners).
I believe that we will put a human on Mars and colonize the moon/planets. Not in my lifetime, probably, but eventually. Why imagine it? On the other hand, I doubt if any human will roam the countryside with his elf companion, talking to trees and hunting dragons and wizards. Ever.
I suggest you read some materials (non-fiction) about AI, nanotech, scientific immortalism, etc. Reading some textbooks (or more accessible popular science books) on physics/chemistry/biology/astronomy/other stuff would also help.
Then you would know that (unless you are 70+ already) you have decent chances to be immortal, to visit other star systems, to roam (in a virtual world indistinguishable from reality, or here on real Earth if you wish) whatever side with elves, talking trees, wizards, whatever.
I really hate when people don't bother to learn anymore. Thanks to science and technology your own damn future is more excting than anything that you can read about in some pulp fantasy novel. Would you please fucking appreciate that?
Space travel as discussed in science fiction has become something that we no longer hope for in our lifetimes.
What "lifetimes" are you talking about? That is the part of the future, dammit! We are not going to live a measly 70 years and this is part of the story that is not told. Robinson decided to concentrate on space, but his rant is valid in relation to all other frontiers. 50 years ago we couldn't believe that one day all deseases including old age could be cured. Now we know it almost for certain. And why mainstream sci-fi doesn't speak about it? Same with nanotechnology. Why, oh why, forecasts by scientists are now more exciting than sci-fi?
Actually this is a pretty interesting question, given that our society is going to become more wired with every passing year. I expect Apple to do everything not to delist any songs, unless, of course, iTunes goes out of business. But you are right that a risk still remains. Howether, I am afraid any forecasts about this become pure speculations because of the speed of progress. Napster started just a few years ago, MP3s appeared not long before that, Internet (as in WWW) is only some 10+ years old. I think to have any expectations than "better, faster, cheaper" about the future is odd. :) So even though there are some risks, the most expected outcome is for iTunes to grow more and more until they have every song and can provide it to you at any time and in any place. Remember, there always is (at least potential) competition from P2P. A much worse offering would not suffice.
;)
Sorry if that doesn't make any sense.
They can prohibit sharing by requiring you to reauthorise with iTunes first, removing the rights to the song and only after that would a buyer get his new license.
Since no music can ever become out of print or rare at iTunes, that removes another incentive to buy "used" songs. People would have to sell them for less than 0.99 to make others interested and to compensate them the complexity of buying the song on eBay instead of the convenience of iTunes. That would make sense with large collections and, I believe that once this will really become important for iTunes customers, Apple will do something. After all, lack of a resell market for digital songs would somewhat limit their value and make people hesitant to spend money on them.
But in any case, iTunes is a doomed venture. Unrestricted MP3s/OGGs are the way to go. Eventually it will become obvious, although Apple might get a fair profit alongway.
Without copyright law there wouldn't be much need for GPL. And free software would be just fine without GPL - BSD was pretty successful and is the second most successful OSS licence.
Total upload = total download. The worst thing that could happen is a decrease in traffic. The biggest sharers in any P2P always upload more than they download. So there is nothing really terrible about decreased number of sharers. Yes, it's unfortunate, but P2P networks will survive.
Think about it: how can a central planner know what the next big fad is going to be?
Simple. He ignores that. Take cars for example. Cars are considered an integral part of American Way, but a central planner would simply build a convenient public transporation system and provide cars only to emergency services and taxi companies. Did he fail to foresee the fad? How could you say it when in that alternative reality the fad failed to emerge. How can there be a Pokemon craze in a planned economy if planners simply decide not to produce Pokemon cartoons or toys?
The free market is the best possible mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources.
Wrong. The free market is the best possible mechanism to allocate scarce resources to reach Pareto optimum in the system where all participants are free to sell, buy and do business. Basically free market is the best system for the market economy. That's all.
Fairness of the market is overestimated. For example, have you considered that free market logically means that people's worth equals to the amount of money they have (or at least roughly proportional). That means that happiness of Bill Gates is considered first and foremost priority in the world. To see this you only need a basic understanding of microeconomics, particularly the utility model.
As for the flexibility of markets, for some reason it only works about 10% of the time, but proponents of the markets choose to ignore the other 90% cases. Consider Russia, where free market brought misery to the majority of the population after the centrally planned economy was destroyed. The economic crisis Russia faced after transition to free market is more severe (-50%) than even the Great Depression of the US (-30%). Add to that the rest of the developing world where the free market failed to do its magic. And at the same time look at what Soviet Russia managed to achieve in 1920s-1960s with planned economy. To change from agrarian country into a world superpower, which during some periods also had good quality of life, comparable with the capitalist countries.
I particularly hate the word shortage. People think that when you have full shelves at stores it is somehow better than when you don't. They fail to realise that what matters is not the shortage, it's how much people can actually eat/consume. In early 1990s Russia faced shortages and rationing. After prices were "liberated", shortages disappeared, but the actual consumption levels plummeted. I would take shortages and rationing over that. I would rather wait in line to get my milk than have 45% of the people in the country live below the official poverty line (today, after 13 years of free market).
In Praise of Close-Mindedness
A Manifesto for the Thoughtful Asshole
Imagine you are engaged in heated debate with a nitwit. Perhaps he insists that the tiny amount of electromagnetic radiation produced by small appliances is life-threatening. Maybe he claims that science - science! - proves that ancient, unprincipled medical practices are still relevant today. Possibly he asserts that telepathy and ESP are firmly grounded in modern physics. You've probably been taught to suffer such brainlessness, to be "open-minded" lest you endure the scorn of a society that ham-handedly stuffs tolerance down your throat. Maybe you've even managed to convince yourself that there is benefit in listening patiently to views that conflict violently with common sense. After all, how can you accurately judge a person's ideas unless you hear their entire line of reasoning? Didn't everyone call Einstein crazy? Don't you risk missing out on a superior and revolutionary way of thinking? It's best, it might seem, to simply hear them out before passing judgment.
My friends, do not fall into this trap. These people are not latter-day Einsteins. They are the slobbering, gibbering cretins you believe them to be. Do not be tricked into equating unbiased thinking with uncritical thinking. Do not be ashamed of dismissing them out of hand. No! Break free of the chains of open- mindedness! Throw down the shackles of undiscriminating tolerance! Refuse to endure another instant of sanity-eroding idiocy!
This all assumes, of course, that you are not a moron. If you are a moron, you should listen to your betters. You should also go far, far away - this very instant, mind you - and never trouble us again.
How, one might ask, did close-mindedness get such a bad rap? It's the tyranny of the majority, dear reader. You see, idiots vastly outnumber clear-thinking souls like ourselves. A moment's reflection will make this clear. Think, for example, of intelligent design theory, evolutionary psychology, and Star Wars missile defense. We are awash in a flood of filtered, purified drivel that erodes our ability to think critically and leaves us gasping for rational exposition. The loonies are everywhere, demanding our attention in a compulsive need to spread their viral stupidity. They don't want you questioning the rationality of their ravings. They don't want you pointing out obvious logical flaws. No! When we rightfully blow them off they decry our haughtiness and froth over our unreasoning hatred of different points of view. In this manner they have fought to make discretion unfashionable and dragoon otherwise reasonable individuals into hearing them out.
What can we do to combat this evil movement against closed-mindedness? The solution is to aggressively, assiduously ignore the slack-jawed hordes. This requires developing rules of thumb for identifying those who are likely to be wastes of time - psychiatrists, goateed self-described philosophers, Bush voters, and so on. Some people have a hard time accepting this. They point out that such generalizations may fail when applied to a specific individual, thereby revealing their need to bone up on the definition of "generalization". "How can you say that all sociologists are fatuous blowhards?" they say. "That's a sweeping generalization - surely there's some sociologist who conducts useful research". This is not the point. While it turns out that in this particular example the general rule is never violated - all sociologists truly are fatuous blowhards - the idea is that even if this were sometimes false, probabilistically speaking one would still come out ahead by tuning out whenever a sociologist opens his or her mouth.
"Good day, sir. I have recently completed research wherein I demonstrate that a complex set of human behaviors can be divided into an ad hoc set of complementary categories. The ingenious twist is that particular behaviors - in fact, all behaviors that anyone has ever specifically mentione
I thought so. But there is such thing as unintended irony, which is the case here. :)
Troll? You call that trolling? How is this for trolling. Selling pictures of naked kids indeed...
This guy has an agenda and he needs to be watched out for.
Public offer: If you happen to know an impressionable game junky, I am willing to reimburse the cost of Hitman and Hitman 2 games, on the condition that you buy these games for the above mentioned junky and provide him/her with the home address of Jack Thompson. This offer becomes valid immediately.
Well, how about Take Two or Rockstar Games co-operate (hire the lawyers) with some of the guys whose cars were shot and sue the parents for gross negligence? That would teach those suckers (and everyone else who dreams about suing a gaming company) a lesson...
For those who didn't notice the irony in the parent post, the final sentence of the 1984 is "He loved the Big Brother".
AlltheWeb is even better at this, because it "[adds the] quotes to common phrases".
AltaVista - because it was the first search engine, because it provides decent quality results today and because it doesn't censor search results, like Google does.
Yeah, I think under 200 billions queries a day even Google will be slashdotted in no time. And no, I don't think Google cache will work, either.