For a tech site, the first thing the editor should be doing is adding tech based questioning to the PR bullshit.
Wait a minute, guys. You (and GP) don't get it.
TFA is ABOUT how-it-looks, and why how-it-looks matters. How-it-looks isn't some tangential aspect; it is the point.
You can already buy solar panels. If this was just Yet Another manufacturer who was selling solar panels, it wouldn't be worthy of a Slashvertisement. The technical details aren't as relevant as the fact that it's fashionable and unobtrusive. And yes, I realize I'm posting here on a tech-oriented site.
The whole point is that by looking-good, Tesla thinks they can sell more of them. And if they sell a fuckton of them, there will be interesting consequences, both in terms of industrial scale and price of the hardware itself (and consider imitators), and maybe in terms of the energy grid. And it's in imagining the future consequences, that it might be relevant to a tech site.
If you want to get into details about energy collection, storage and usage, I totally get it. But that's appropriate for any of hundreds of solar or battery tech stories (ok, maybe you're not getting enough of them here on Slashdot). This story, though, is about having them be pretty. It's kind of like if there were a story about a computer with integrated monitor being introduced in five fruity flavors. Yeah, you can talk about what of bus the RAM uses, but that's not the point of five fruity flavors. The point is that maybe some people want an ugly-as-fuck Fisher-Price desk. And if they do, maybe you can sell them some Fisher-Price styled software, or maybe increased personal computer deployment is going to result in scaling which makes your next piece of gear cost less, etc. Or maybe you can make an even more ridiculous-looking computer, armed with this hilarious new knowledge about the market.
Your comparison to Jobs is even apt, but you miss why. Before 2007, only nerds had smartphones. After Jobs did something [wave hands], everyone had one and now you don't even buy them from Jobs' company, if you know what you're doing. Yet even if you have a non-Apple phone, Jobs mattered.
I bet your 2016 smartphone isn't like your 2006 one, and the differences are not merely tech. Your phone doesn't just have a 10-years-newer CPU in it, or 10-years-more of RAM. Your phone is more deeply different because of the various market forces that you almost certainly didn't foresee. (WTF, it's 2016 and I don't even have a keyboard anymore? Fuck!) And software for your phone is marketed and sold differently than you ever would have guessed in 2006, and everyone's phone software is generally less safe and less carefully audited than you might have predicted, and so on.
What changed wasn't just tech, but the non-tech aspects left their mark on the tech. Get it? So, Slashdot, consider the true essence of what Musk is pushing (hint: don't use the word "Watt") and what this essence is going to mean in tech.
Why are companies trying to make solar collectors pretty? Does this mean they're going to start getting deployed more? Does this give you some business ideas? Can you steal the idea and make some even prettier? Should you think twice before you plant a tree south of your house, since maybe in 20 years, everyone is going to want a solar roof, not just "energy nerds?" Or is it all bullshit and you think making it pretty doesn't matter?
Say Uber gets their wish and is the only taxi company in the world. Uber drivers in your country/district decide to try their luck and go on strike. Now Uber decides to check the box in the their web console to turn off all jobs in that area to show drivers who is boss, suddenly your country has almost no taxies.
No. Uber is too easy to replace.
If the drivers in a country are capable of deciding to strike together, they're also capable of competing with Uber.
Don't get me wrong, everyone; I think Uber was a really great idea. But now we all know the idea! And unlike lots of seemingly-neat ideas, this one is market-tested. We know customers are ok with it.
If Uber ever were to ever do anything sufficiently hostile that society decides replace them, Uber has to worry that the replacement would likely be better. Maybe some government corruption could prevent that, but you can never be sure the replacement won't use some kind of open protocol, or that it doesn't spill out from just ride-sharing into general use where everything just gets bigger and more important. If that happens, then Uber leaving an area would be permanent, since no one would ever go back to them if they returned. And it would spread, too.
Uber is always on the precipice of utter, complete obsolescence. They're not going to do anything to piss people off.
I think you might be confused about who the victim is, in this particular case. I'm a whitey, and I'm off to go update my profile picture to have more ad-blocking in it.
publishing a voted ballot on social media can be a powerful form of political expression. It says that someone claiming they voted without photographic proof reduces the credibility of the individual.
Does freedom of speech require credibility? Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" is just as good whether or not you think he really disagrees with British rule in his heart.
Let's say Person A furnishes authenticated proof they voted for Giant Douche. Penn and Teller, Bruce Schneier, some Lloyds of London claims investigators, and some unidentified Men in Black all examine the process and they say they're unable to think up a way it could have been faked.
Person B shows "evidence" they voted for Turd Sandwich but everyone knows they were guaranteed a means and opportunity to forge it. They went into a booth, containing a PC with image manipulation software and a staff of graphics experts, and they were not allowed to leave until 24 hours later, when they emerged with a bag of shredded ballots which were immediately burned, and a "photo" where they're voting but the font used on the ballot has been changed. You know for sure the photo has been touched but you don't know if circles on the ballot depicted have been changed, or that it's the ballot that was used for voting. You just don't know.
Person A and B did not get to decide the process. I inflicted this upon them. I say I decided, before I knew how anyone would vote, that Person A gets to have proof and Person B does not. I tell you I flipped a coin, but I didn't actually let you see me do that. I might be lying. You don't know.
You are trying to decide between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. Does either of their expressions help you decide? Does one help more than the other? Can you explain how you worked the problem?
(IMHO: it makes no difference, and the credibility issue is 100.0% irrelevant.)
You can send bitcoin far and fast, relative to an envelope full of cash.
I'd be more excited about a machine that accepts bitcoin and dispenses cash.
Yeah, that might be useful too. There's no reason you can't do both. Just don't have the two machines physically in view of each other, or else a customer at one kiosk might look to see if there's anyone at the other, and then walk over cut out the middleman.
And you call yourself Opportunist!? Here you are, texting away, while future's history awaits the next genius the caliber of Lewis Carroll, Eric Idle or George W Bush.
A dongle by its very nature sticks out. It is totally phallic.
The one distinguishing trait of all dongles were that they were proprietary hardware. You couldn't just buy one from a competitor, or make one.
(Phallic definitely isn't it. I remember when Netware came with a dongle which was an internal ISA card. Not phallic.)
In that respect, the iPhone's dependency on Lightning does make its connectors dongle-like. You could say it's an adapter and a dongle.
That's the world we live in, ladies and gentleman. Welcome to the future.
Uh, no. That's the world we mostly upgraded from, a long time ago. AFAIK the only remaining dongles I use, are my phone's SIM card and the chip in my new ATM/credit cards.
Why is this framed as a problem with the MacBook? It sounds like the iPhone is the one trapped a decade or two behind the technology that everyone else takes for granted.
If I were stuck with one of those, I wouldn't waste the $25. I'd just upgrade to a decent phone.
And what happens when you go to any website with copyrighted content? You download it, making a copy, adding it to ram, making a copy, adding it to your web cache, making a copy. Yet no one considers any of those unlicensed acts copyright infringement.
If the content in question were kiddie porn, though, a majority would say the user is responsible for the user-agent's behavior. So while you didn't infringe the child pornographer's copyright, you did commit some sort of child pornography offense.
What this tells me, is that users are responsible for the download, but the infringing download has a Fair Use defense.
But that presumes the copy on the server wasn't made via infringement. But the user doesn't know that. So maybe it's Fair Use if the user believes it's Fair Use ("if you didn't want people to download your article, you shouldn't have published it on your web server!"), but infringement if the user believes it's not ("if you didn't want people to download your article, you shouldn't have let pirates put it on their web serv-- oh shit, you've got me!"). Very mens rea-ish.
I'm obviously missing something major here, because except for the SMS gateway, this sounds like Jabber/XMPP 15 years ago. You can talk that protocol on anything (or everything at once), except have dozens of compatible implementations to choose from instead of just one proprietary one.
And the SMS gateway, while that would have been super-cool back in 2003 before everyone had smartphones, sounds like an archaic requirement in 2016 when everyone has a smartphone that they use to access the Internet.
SMS is borderline obsolete if you have TCP/IP. It sounds like people are saying you have to use an iPhone because it's the only way you can talk to.. people.. who have.. 1990s phones..? I don't get it.
And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.
I could say the nonsense about your vote for your candidate. How would you like it if I said your vote for Clinton supports Trump or Stein? Because by voting against Johnson, it sure looks like that's what you're doing: preventing Johnson from winning, so that we get stuck with whoever else wins instead.
Please don't vote against Johnson. Don't throw your vote away like that, voting on a spoiler. Your vote could have been against the Republicrats and instead you're going to help one of them win again.
(See how condescending that is? Please knock it off.)
The obvious common-sense explanation is that they don't have anything particularly interesting on Trump.
Imagine that you actually had something about Trump that was worse than what he always says in public. (I know, it's hard. But try. Maybe "grab the dick" or something.) So you send the information to Wikileaks, and they just sit on it. Weeks go by, you email Julian, "Hey, what about my leak?" and he doesn't reply.
What would you do?
I think you would leak through another channel. Wikileaks isn't the only game in town when it comes to media, you know. If you're too lazy to upload the torrent yourself, there just might be a few thousand other media organizations that would be willing to take the information.
Since this hasn't happened, I think the least extraordinary and most believable explanation, is that there hasn't been a Trump leak. Are you saying that you have come up with an even more likely explanation, where there has been a Trump leak and a conspiracy between every media outlet in the world, led by Wikileaks, to suppress the information in it?
It's interference when it is being done to influence an election
Ok, fine. But if that's your definition, then even a paid advertisement or giving a speech would be examples of interference. Why is interference considered noteworthy or undesirable? Shouldn't everyone be interfering with the election? Australia has mandatory vote; I think America should have mandatory interference!
Unless that's not what you meant. Maybe you meant that interference implies something unsavory? Oh, but then you don't get to apply it to what Wikileaks did. That's quite a dilemma. Have you considered maybe just stop hating Wikileaks, and being grateful that they've already outed and embarrassed the next president? With Trump destroying the Republicans and Clinton already a lame duck, maybe America can have a real election in 2020. Show me one politically-idealistic person, on either the right or left, who doesn't want that to happen.
Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.
So go steal it! Why are people acting so entitled yet unwilling to do the work?
This is like complaining about the arrest of John Wayne Gacy because they haven't arrested Jeffrey Dahmer yet. If you wanna complain about Dahmer, fine, but quit bitching about Gacy's arrest.
WHERE IS YOUR INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO LEAK? Supply it. Wikileaks will probably be happy to help you. And if they aren't, guess what: Wikileaks totally and completely lacks the capability to prevent you from leaking it yourself, or getting someone else to help you do it.
I think it's a lot more interesting that he was granted access to see whatever's inside the bag. That's a much bigger leap, and more invasive than reading the magstrip.
The car has clear glass windows. Everyone in public can see what's inside. But when you went through the opaque plastic (cop's own words), you were crossing the boundary between public and private. Any random passerby (e.g. you or I) can see that the bag exists. A passerby cannot see what's inside the bag. To gain that information, you have to get some kind of special access. Owning the bag is one way, warrants are another, and crime is a third.
But it happened. (And it kind of sounds like maybe the suspect consented, so I forgot: the owner telling/showing you what's in the bag is a fourth way!)
Once a judge has already ruled that he's allowed to see what's inside the bag, take things (such as cards) out of it, etc, then it doesn't seem like a stretch for the same judge to also rule it's ok to recursively look inside the nested objects. "We've already established what kind of woman you are, madam. Now we're just haggling over the price."
(BTW, the question about receipts is hysterical. If I'm going to be suspected of a crime for not having receipts, then damn near everything I own is presumed stolen. I bet the same goes for you too, as well as the cop. Got a reciept for that donut? For your $400 smartphone? For your socks?)
With respect, expecting much of a work ethic in a temporary part time job with a nebulous future is a bit misguided.
Actually, you've got the right idea but there's a problem word here: "Ethic."
If the employer is not fully committed, then an ethical employee should not be fully committed, either. You actually are seeing a functional work ethic even in shitty jobs. It's ethical, just also.. maybe regrettable.
I wonder if the jargon term "work ethic" was coined by people who were trying to take ethics out of the discussion, by advocating for an asymmetric relationship. We should stop using that term; it's too loaded.
iTunes is weird, in that you need a special application which only runs on a couple of OSes, to be able to use it. You can play the music on nearly anything, but you can't simply buy it on anything.
They should make a web store. I think this web thing is going to take off; it's not a fad.
Lobbyists go around the people, to have your representatives work against you.
Bad media goes around your representatives, to have you work against yourself.
Maybe they're the same in that they're your adversary, but they're also pretty different. It's like saying an enemy fighter plane and an enemy tank are the same. Yeah, they're both the enemy's forces, I suppose...
Slashdot Mirror
Some intern spent 5 minutes changing this one command, saving the whole world (including his employer) a few billion dollars over the next few years.
And that intern's name was .. Donald Trump 2020!
Wait a minute, guys. You (and GP) don't get it.
TFA is ABOUT how-it-looks, and why how-it-looks matters. How-it-looks isn't some tangential aspect; it is the point.
You can already buy solar panels. If this was just Yet Another manufacturer who was selling solar panels, it wouldn't be worthy of a Slashvertisement. The technical details aren't as relevant as the fact that it's fashionable and unobtrusive. And yes, I realize I'm posting here on a tech-oriented site.
The whole point is that by looking-good, Tesla thinks they can sell more of them. And if they sell a fuckton of them, there will be interesting consequences, both in terms of industrial scale and price of the hardware itself (and consider imitators), and maybe in terms of the energy grid. And it's in imagining the future consequences, that it might be relevant to a tech site.
If you want to get into details about energy collection, storage and usage, I totally get it. But that's appropriate for any of hundreds of solar or battery tech stories (ok, maybe you're not getting enough of them here on Slashdot). This story, though, is about having them be pretty. It's kind of like if there were a story about a computer with integrated monitor being introduced in five fruity flavors. Yeah, you can talk about what of bus the RAM uses, but that's not the point of five fruity flavors. The point is that maybe some people want an ugly-as-fuck Fisher-Price desk. And if they do, maybe you can sell them some Fisher-Price styled software, or maybe increased personal computer deployment is going to result in scaling which makes your next piece of gear cost less, etc. Or maybe you can make an even more ridiculous-looking computer, armed with this hilarious new knowledge about the market.
Your comparison to Jobs is even apt, but you miss why. Before 2007, only nerds had smartphones. After Jobs did something [wave hands], everyone had one and now you don't even buy them from Jobs' company, if you know what you're doing. Yet even if you have a non-Apple phone, Jobs mattered.
I bet your 2016 smartphone isn't like your 2006 one, and the differences are not merely tech. Your phone doesn't just have a 10-years-newer CPU in it, or 10-years-more of RAM. Your phone is more deeply different because of the various market forces that you almost certainly didn't foresee. (WTF, it's 2016 and I don't even have a keyboard anymore? Fuck!) And software for your phone is marketed and sold differently than you ever would have guessed in 2006, and everyone's phone software is generally less safe and less carefully audited than you might have predicted, and so on.
What changed wasn't just tech, but the non-tech aspects left their mark on the tech. Get it? So, Slashdot, consider the true essence of what Musk is pushing (hint: don't use the word "Watt") and what this essence is going to mean in tech.
Why are companies trying to make solar collectors pretty? Does this mean they're going to start getting deployed more? Does this give you some business ideas? Can you steal the idea and make some even prettier? Should you think twice before you plant a tree south of your house, since maybe in 20 years, everyone is going to want a solar roof, not just "energy nerds?" Or is it all bullshit and you think making it pretty doesn't matter?
No. Uber is too easy to replace.
If the drivers in a country are capable of deciding to strike together, they're also capable of competing with Uber.
Don't get me wrong, everyone; I think Uber was a really great idea. But now we all know the idea! And unlike lots of seemingly-neat ideas, this one is market-tested. We know customers are ok with it.
If Uber ever were to ever do anything sufficiently hostile that society decides replace them, Uber has to worry that the replacement would likely be better. Maybe some government corruption could prevent that, but you can never be sure the replacement won't use some kind of open protocol, or that it doesn't spill out from just ride-sharing into general use where everything just gets bigger and more important. If that happens, then Uber leaving an area would be permanent, since no one would ever go back to them if they returned. And it would spread, too.
Uber is always on the precipice of utter, complete obsolescence. They're not going to do anything to piss people off.
I think you might be confused about who the victim is, in this particular case. I'm a whitey, and I'm off to go update my profile picture to have more ad-blocking in it.
Does freedom of speech require credibility? Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" is just as good whether or not you think he really disagrees with British rule in his heart.
Let's say Person A furnishes authenticated proof they voted for Giant Douche. Penn and Teller, Bruce Schneier, some Lloyds of London claims investigators, and some unidentified Men in Black all examine the process and they say they're unable to think up a way it could have been faked.
Person B shows "evidence" they voted for Turd Sandwich but everyone knows they were guaranteed a means and opportunity to forge it. They went into a booth, containing a PC with image manipulation software and a staff of graphics experts, and they were not allowed to leave until 24 hours later, when they emerged with a bag of shredded ballots which were immediately burned, and a "photo" where they're voting but the font used on the ballot has been changed. You know for sure the photo has been touched but you don't know if circles on the ballot depicted have been changed, or that it's the ballot that was used for voting. You just don't know.
Person A and B did not get to decide the process. I inflicted this upon them. I say I decided, before I knew how anyone would vote, that Person A gets to have proof and Person B does not. I tell you I flipped a coin, but I didn't actually let you see me do that. I might be lying. You don't know.
You are trying to decide between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. Does either of their expressions help you decide? Does one help more than the other? Can you explain how you worked the problem?
(IMHO: it makes no difference, and the credibility issue is 100.0% irrelevant.)
You can send bitcoin far and fast, relative to an envelope full of cash.
Yeah, that might be useful too. There's no reason you can't do both. Just don't have the two machines physically in view of each other, or else a customer at one kiosk might look to see if there's anyone at the other, and then walk over cut out the middleman.
And you call yourself Opportunist!? Here you are, texting away, while future's history awaits the next genius the caliber of Lewis Carroll, Eric Idle or George W Bush.
The one distinguishing trait of all dongles were that they were proprietary hardware. You couldn't just buy one from a competitor, or make one.
(Phallic definitely isn't it. I remember when Netware came with a dongle which was an internal ISA card. Not phallic.)
In that respect, the iPhone's dependency on Lightning does make its connectors dongle-like. You could say it's an adapter and a dongle.
Uh, no. That's the world we mostly upgraded from, a long time ago. AFAIK the only remaining dongles I use, are my phone's SIM card and the chip in my new ATM/credit cards.
Why is this framed as a problem with the MacBook? It sounds like the iPhone is the one trapped a decade or two behind the technology that everyone else takes for granted.
If I were stuck with one of those, I wouldn't waste the $25. I'd just upgrade to a decent phone.
That's easy! I got this.
They do it because the smartest minds do it, and everyone (even feebles) wants to look besmartified. Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
If the content in question were kiddie porn, though, a majority would say the user is responsible for the user-agent's behavior. So while you didn't infringe the child pornographer's copyright, you did commit some sort of child pornography offense.
What this tells me, is that users are responsible for the download, but the infringing download has a Fair Use defense.
But that presumes the copy on the server wasn't made via infringement. But the user doesn't know that. So maybe it's Fair Use if the user believes it's Fair Use ("if you didn't want people to download your article, you shouldn't have published it on your web server!"), but infringement if the user believes it's not ("if you didn't want people to download your article, you shouldn't have let pirates put it on their web serv-- oh shit, you've got me!"). Very mens rea-ish.
I'm obviously missing something major here, because except for the SMS gateway, this sounds like Jabber/XMPP 15 years ago. You can talk that protocol on anything (or everything at once), except have dozens of compatible implementations to choose from instead of just one proprietary one.
And the SMS gateway, while that would have been super-cool back in 2003 before everyone had smartphones, sounds like an archaic requirement in 2016 when everyone has a smartphone that they use to access the Internet.
SMS is borderline obsolete if you have TCP/IP. It sounds like people are saying you have to use an iPhone because it's the only way you can talk to .. people .. who have .. 1990s phones..? I don't get it.
I could say the nonsense about your vote for your candidate. How would you like it if I said your vote for Clinton supports Trump or Stein? Because by voting against Johnson, it sure looks like that's what you're doing: preventing Johnson from winning, so that we get stuck with whoever else wins instead.
Please don't vote against Johnson. Don't throw your vote away like that, voting on a spoiler. Your vote could have been against the Republicrats and instead you're going to help one of them win again.
(See how condescending that is? Please knock it off.)
Why are people blaming Wikileaks for that?
The obvious common-sense explanation is that they don't have anything particularly interesting on Trump.
Imagine that you actually had something about Trump that was worse than what he always says in public. (I know, it's hard. But try. Maybe "grab the dick" or something.) So you send the information to Wikileaks, and they just sit on it. Weeks go by, you email Julian, "Hey, what about my leak?" and he doesn't reply.
What would you do?
I think you would leak through another channel. Wikileaks isn't the only game in town when it comes to media, you know. If you're too lazy to upload the torrent yourself, there just might be a few thousand other media organizations that would be willing to take the information.
Since this hasn't happened, I think the least extraordinary and most believable explanation, is that there hasn't been a Trump leak. Are you saying that you have come up with an even more likely explanation, where there has been a Trump leak and a conspiracy between every media outlet in the world, led by Wikileaks, to suppress the information in it?
Ok, fine. But if that's your definition, then even a paid advertisement or giving a speech would be examples of interference. Why is interference considered noteworthy or undesirable? Shouldn't everyone be interfering with the election? Australia has mandatory vote; I think America should have mandatory interference!
Unless that's not what you meant. Maybe you meant that interference implies something unsavory? Oh, but then you don't get to apply it to what Wikileaks did. That's quite a dilemma. Have you considered maybe just stop hating Wikileaks, and being grateful that they've already outed and embarrassed the next president? With Trump destroying the Republicans and Clinton already a lame duck, maybe America can have a real election in 2020. Show me one politically-idealistic person, on either the right or left, who doesn't want that to happen.
Found the wall contractor. ;-)
So go steal it! Why are people acting so entitled yet unwilling to do the work?
This is like complaining about the arrest of John Wayne Gacy because they haven't arrested Jeffrey Dahmer yet. If you wanna complain about Dahmer, fine, but quit bitching about Gacy's arrest.
WHERE IS YOUR INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO LEAK? Supply it. Wikileaks will probably be happy to help you. And if they aren't, guess what: Wikileaks totally and completely lacks the capability to prevent you from leaking it yourself, or getting someone else to help you do it.
I think it's a lot more interesting that he was granted access to see whatever's inside the bag. That's a much bigger leap, and more invasive than reading the magstrip.
The car has clear glass windows. Everyone in public can see what's inside. But when you went through the opaque plastic (cop's own words), you were crossing the boundary between public and private. Any random passerby (e.g. you or I) can see that the bag exists. A passerby cannot see what's inside the bag. To gain that information, you have to get some kind of special access. Owning the bag is one way, warrants are another, and crime is a third.
But it happened. (And it kind of sounds like maybe the suspect consented, so I forgot: the owner telling/showing you what's in the bag is a fourth way!)
Once a judge has already ruled that he's allowed to see what's inside the bag, take things (such as cards) out of it, etc, then it doesn't seem like a stretch for the same judge to also rule it's ok to recursively look inside the nested objects. "We've already established what kind of woman you are, madam. Now we're just haggling over the price."
(BTW, the question about receipts is hysterical. If I'm going to be suspected of a crime for not having receipts, then damn near everything I own is presumed stolen. I bet the same goes for you too, as well as the cop. Got a reciept for that donut? For your $400 smartphone? For your socks?)
But also, math is hard!
Actually, you've got the right idea but there's a problem word here: "Ethic."
If the employer is not fully committed, then an ethical employee should not be fully committed, either. You actually are seeing a functional work ethic even in shitty jobs. It's ethical, just also .. maybe regrettable.
I wonder if the jargon term "work ethic" was coined by people who were trying to take ethics out of the discussion, by advocating for an asymmetric relationship. We should stop using that term; it's too loaded.
Amazon vs Wal-Mart: who would win?
iTunes is weird, in that you need a special application which only runs on a couple of OSes, to be able to use it. You can play the music on nearly anything, but you can't simply buy it on anything.
They should make a web store. I think this web thing is going to take off; it's not a fad.
And once you give someone a piece of amber with velociraptor DNA inside it, and a way to embryonize it, it becomes a way to make a cool theme park.
He is talking about a computer program called lzexe, not the compression algorithm that it used.
Lobbyists go around the people, to have your representatives work against you.
Bad media goes around your representatives, to have you work against yourself.
Maybe they're the same in that they're your adversary, but they're also pretty different. It's like saying an enemy fighter plane and an enemy tank are the same. Yeah, they're both the enemy's forces, I suppose...